OCTOBER 26 — Three years ago, in the 1MDB audit report tampering case, the prosecution applied to amend the charges against former prime minister Najib Razak and former 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) chief executive officer Arul Kanda Kandasamy.

The High Court allowed the application. Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan made the decision after finding that the amendment to the charges would not cause any prejudice or cause injustice to both the accused.

The Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) had submitted to the Court that the amendment to the charges did not have the effect of changing the nature of the offence or having the effect of opening up a new trial.

In his submission, the learned DPP said:

“No question of prejudice can arise when the amended charge merely repeats in more appropriate words the substances of the original charge. The addition or alteration of charges does not open up the trial from the beginning, and the court may immediately proceed with a trial if it is of opinion that there will be no prejudice to the accused.”

Three years ago, in the 1MDB audit report tampering case, the prosecution applied to amend the charges against former prime minister Najib Razak and former 1MDB CEO Arul Kanda Kandasamy. Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan allowed the application after finding that the amendment to the charges would not cause any prejudice or cause injustice to both the accused. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
Three years ago, in the 1MDB audit report tampering case, the prosecution applied to amend the charges against former prime minister Najib Razak and former 1MDB CEO Arul Kanda Kandasamy. Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan allowed the application after finding that the amendment to the charges would not cause any prejudice or cause injustice to both the accused. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

The learned trial judge agreed. In response to the argument by the defence that the amendment would result in the “goalpost being shifted”, Judge Zaini said:

“Even [if] this amendment results in the goalpost being shifted, it will still remain within the pitch.”

“The defence will still be able to aim their ‘shots’. I am here to ensure that they will be given every ample opportunity to mount their defence,” the learned judge continued.

“I am confident that the defence will have ample time and opportunity to prepare their case, based on the amendments to the charges. I will on my part try my utmost best to ensure that they are not put to any disadvantage.

“I am therefore of the view that the amendment to the charges will not cause any prejudice or cause injustice to the accused. The application to amend the charge [is] therefore allowed,” he said.

So, if a charge is analogous to a goalpost, then amending a charge that is not prejudicial to the accused is like shifting the goalpost but still within the pitch. Shots can still be aimed at the goal.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.