Richard Ness : Trial Log : Court Hearing #21 on 21 April 2006


Court Hearing #21 on 21 April 2006 - 21 Apr 2006
by Eric

witness

Muladi

• I could not draw any conclusions regarding this witnesses testimony as it was incomplete.

• Witness testified regarding basic criminal law in criminal aspects of environmental law.

• Witness showed up in court for a short period and cross examination was incomplete Witness stated he needed to catch the mid day Garuda flight back to Jakarta but that while still under oath, that he would return to testify the next week. At the next hearing he failed to attend and never notified the Judges or Prosecutor. I FOUND IT SIMPLY AMAZING THAT A FORMER MINISTER OF JUSTICE WOULD LYE TO THE COURT UNDER OATH AND STATE HE WOULD ATTEND THE NEXT HEARING TO GRANT ME AN OPERTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM, (WHICH IS MY BASIC RIGHT) AND NEVER SHOWED UP. Nor did he inform the court of any reason for not attending.

· Since the witness is a criminal law expert, I would have liked to explore how ‘legality principle’ can be violated in the name of public interest and justice.

· I would have also wished to ask the witness to explain to me what rights that are afforded a suspect under Indonesian law during the criminal investigative process: Specifically during the investigation of a criminal act :
  • 1. Does a suspect of a criminal act have the right to have witnesses and evidence submitted on his/her behalf, to have those witnesses for the defense and supporting evidence examined, and to have the results of that examination included as part of the investigative record?
  • 2. What legal rights does a company or I as an individual have as a recourse if the fundamental rights of being able to produce witnesses and evidence during a criminal investigation are ignored?
  • 3. Under Indonesian criminal law, can a writ of habeas corpus decision be appealed to the Supreme Court?


Maybe he did not want to answer these questions as he would have had to more then likely have to testify and admit that the investigative procedure and the fundamental rights of the accused have been violated throughout the investigative and prosecution of this case. Who knows, as one can only speculate since he did not reappear before the court.
The opinions posted here are that of myself, my brothers, and other contributors and not that of my father nor the company he works for.