What did Michael Kong say about the trial judge setting aside the subpoena?

Question

Accepted Answer

Michael Kong Argued the Trial Judge Erred in Setting Aside a Subpoena

Michael Kong, representing Sarawak DAP chief Chong Chieng Jen, contended that the trial judge made an error by setting aside a subpoena for former state finance minister II Wong Soon Koh. This action, Kong argued, prevented Wong Soon Koh from testifying on behalf of the defence. Consequently, Kong sought a retrial based on this assertion during the appeal proceedings.
Preventing Defence Witness Testimony

The core of Michael Kong's argument centred on the trial judge's decision to quash a subpoena intended for Wong Soon Koh. Kong asserted that this ruling unjustly barred a crucial witness for the defence from providing testimony. The ability of Wong Soon Koh to appear and give evidence was, therefore, obstructed by the trial judge's decision.
Basis for Retrial Request

As a result of the subpoena being set aside, Kong argued that a retrial was necessary to ensure a fair process. He maintained that the exclusion of Wong Soon Koh's testimony constituted a significant error that impacted the integrity of the original trial. This contention formed a key part of the defence's appeal against the High Court's ruling.
Opposition to Retrial

Conversely, counsel for the Sarawak government and the Sarawak Financial Authority (SFA) argued against the necessity of a retrial. They maintained that the original trial had been conducted appropriately. Furthermore, they asserted that granting a retrial would unfairly prejudice the plaintiffs and cause inconvenience to witnesses involved in the proceedings.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What did Michael Kong say about the trial judge setting aside the subpoena?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends