The Kuala Lumpur High Court today ruled that the lawyers for the mother of a missing detainee can question witnesses and examine exhibits in a coroner's inquest held to determine the identity of a highly decomposed body found in the Klang river on May 23.

Justice Mokhtaruddin Baki said this when revising an earlier ruling by a coroner following an application made by lawyer M Puravelan.

The lawyer is representing G Sara Lilly, the mother of missing detainee G Francis Udayappan.

"After reviewing the application and listening to submissions from parties present today, the court finds that Puravelan must be allowed to question witnesses and examine exhibits relating to Francis," said the judge.

Mokhtaruddin asserted that this would assist the coroner in making well-informed decisions at the inquest which had been postponed indefinitely.

"It is established that the mother has a substantial right and interest in the inquest and the coroner in his wide power to admit evidence during the inquest can allow her lawyer to examine evidence introduced," he added.

The application was made following an earlier ruling by magistrate Nazran Mohd Sham, who is presiding the inquest as a coroner, barring the lawyers from examining the exhibits and witnesses.

'John Doe' inquest

Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Ishak Mohd Yusoff, who told the court this morning that the application should be dismissed, said the inquest was into a 'John Doe' (unidentified body) and not Francis.

He said the references he made to the missing detainee when he called two witnesses during the inquest was merely to avoid the coroner from making "guesses" on the relevant facts involved.

"Sara identified the body but DNA tests proved otherwise, therefore the recovery of the unknown body and the facts relating to Francis' escape are inseparable and closely interwoven," he added.

Puravelan argued that if the facts regarding Francis's arrest, detention and alleged escape were germane to the DPP then they should be for him as well, to which the judge agreed.

"The DPP has suggested that we have a right to recall witnesses that have testified so far only if it is proven that the body lying in the morgue for more than 140 days belongs to Francis but this is an illusory right if the body is later deemed a John Doe.

"However, my hands are now tied while the stratum of evidence is directly connected to Francis. And his family is unhappy with the picture of him being a criminal being only painted by one side," he pointed out.

Of the two witnesses at the inquest, one was the police officer who arrested Francis on April 14 on suspicion of theft and the other was the officer who was escorting the detainee when he made his escape.

Once the inquest resumes, it is expected that the chemist who conducted the DNA test and the pathologist who conducted the post-mortem on the body lying in the University Malaya Medical Centre mortuary will be brought in as witnesses.

Watching brief

Meanwhile, Mokhtaruddin also ruled that the Bar Council will only be allowed to hold a watching brief at the inquest and not quiz witnesses.

The inquest came about following strong lobbying from Francis' family, human rights organisations and concerned citizens.

Francis' mother has always maintained that her son could have been beaten to death while in custody but an investigation by the federal police headquarters ruled out any foul play.

The police claim that he had escaped on April 16 by jumping into a river located next to the Brickfields district police headquarters, where he was held.

His mother had positively identified the body in the morgue as that of Francis based on a tattoo and teeth deformity but two DNA tests had failed to reveal a match.