Why can Najib Razak no longer challenge documentary evidence?

Question

Accepted Answer

Najib Razak Can No Longer Challenge Documentary Evidence Due to Abandonment of Expert Witness

Datuk Seri Najib Razak can no longer challenge the admissibility of documentary evidence implicating him in criminal breach of trust (CBT) offences because his defence team "abandoned" their attempt to have an expert witness testify. The Court of Appeal heard that the defence's failure to produce a document expert's report or call such a witness means the authenticity of the seven exhibits, which include shareholder minutes and fund transfer instructions signed by Najib, can no longer be contested on those grounds.
Defence's Abandonment of Expert Witness

Najib had sought to appoint an Australian document examiner, Steven J. Strach, to scrutinize seven photocopied exhibits. Initially, the defence argued that Najib could not confirm his signature on these documents as originals were not presented in court. However, even when the original documents were produced, Najib maintained his stance, insisting on a handwriting expert to verify his signature. The prosecution contended that by failing to secure an expert report or present the expert to testify, the defence effectively abandoned its challenge to the documents' authenticity.
Failure to Rebut Evidence

The prosecution argued that the admissibility of the seven exhibits, which directly implicate Najib in three CBT offences, was established at the close of the prosecution's case. The defence's subsequent failure to rebut this evidence with an expert report means the documents can no longer be ruled inadmissible on the basis of disputed authenticity. While no adverse inference can be drawn against Najib for not calling the expert, this failure is a factor the trial judge may consider when assessing the overall weight of the evidence.
Unresolved Expert Appointment

The prosecution highlighted that the defence provided no credible reason for an impasse regarding the appointment of an expert, given their resolute stance on needing a document examiner. The defence informed the prosecution that they were unable to proceed with Strach because his report would not be provided, and Strach himself would not testify. The prosecution suggested that if the defence was genuinely concerned about forgery, they should have secured another expert to replace Dr. Strach, finding it unacceptable that a report was not produced and a replacement was not sought.
Najib's Stance on Signatures

Najib's position on his signatures was described as expressing disbelief and doubts rather than a firm assertion of forgery. While he was determined to have an expert examine the documents before acknowledging his signatures, he did not definitively claim they were forged. This nuanced stance, coupled with the abandonment of the expert witness, weakens the defence's ability to challenge the documentary evidence that links him to the alleged CBT offences.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why can Najib Razak no longer challenge documentary evidence?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends