The first year of law school includes the three foundation courses of Crimes, Torts and Contracts. A criminal act requires that it be done with intent, and no conviction will stand if the intent is not proven. This is not true of civil cases, in which only harm need be shown. A man who strikes another in a rage not only invites the attention of the police, he also makes himself liable to his victim for the harm done by his action.

There are famous cases in which a murderer escaped conviction when the case was not successfully prosecuted, only to later face large penalties in a civil action brought by the family of the victim. Anti-social conduct always carries both aspects of legal accountability. It is the purpose of the courts to see that justice is done.

When an act brings criminal charges the suspect is given a choice of plea. A not guilty plea calls for a criminal trial to be brought by the public prosecutor, who must use all his experience, training and aptitude to present all the evidence fairly to the judge. The prosecutor must not favor the suspect by failing to bring out evidence, nor cause harm by introducing false evidence. If he does this, the prosecutor himself commits a crime.

The prosecutor has a like duty to present any evidence which would exonerate the accused, and any showing that this has occurred will sufficiently taint the case as to foil the prosecution. A prosecutor shown to be hiding evidence, or inviting witnesses to lie or hide evidence, he not only fails his public duty, he commits a crime. If it can be shown that a prosecutor (or judge) has been instructed by superiors evade justice, or has accepted promises of promotion or other emolument as inducement, the question of criminal and civil liability become germane.

A criminal act usually has the penalty specified, and when a criminal admits to the offense with a plea of guilty, the penalty is applied and there is but to serve out the term of the sentence. The law applies equally to all, and police officers and politicians of the party in power are not immune from punishment.

When harm results during the commission of a crime, such as from an assault, then civil damages may be brought against the party or parties responsible. If the offender is an officer of the government, acting in an official capacity, then all superiors and the government itself may be sued in a civil action for damages. If the offender is a police officer it is the more reprehensible, as those responsible for enforcing the law are not expected to break it.

The government of Malaysia holds Anwar Ibrahim, a high profile prisoner, in solitary confinement. He has suffered injuries in the national police headquarters at the hands of the head of the national police department. The officer was acting in his official capacity at the time. He eventually was forced by a Royal Commission of Inquiry to enter a plea of guilty to the assault, and subsequently received a two-month sentence. He has yet, over two years later, to serve a day inside a cell.

The prisoner Anwar, however, has never been out of detention since the day of his arrest. He was not given bail, even though clearly entitled to it under the law. Murder suspects make a mockery of Malaysian law, receiving bail repeatedly from a senior officer of the Attorney General's office, the same prosecutor who engineered the two trials of Anwar Ibrahim and other trials in which prisoners were similarly mistreated. His motives are in question.

Anwar Ibrahim has had two public trials in Malaysia. The first was a circus trial, highlighted by the use of a mattress as a safety net. Both prosecutor and judge are to be severely criticised for their roles in this charade. The second trial also resulted in a guilty verdict. This verdict was delivered after the sodomee denied the act three times in the presence of the judge. A witness testified that he was a party to the political conspiracy to present false evidence, naming his co-conspirators. The judge has not written the grounds for his verdict, and yet he has been given responsibility for new trials.

The law expects prosecutors to act solely in the public interest and judges who exercise reason in applying the law to the cases before them. The law relies on literacy and logic, and judges must be able to write clearly and concisely the grounds and reasoning behind their verdicts. These writings form the foundation of the law, and in the interests of justice must be presented in a timely manner.

In Malaysia the timeliness is become optional and slipshod. Many important cases have gone for years without grounds being written. There is now a judge in the highest court who has never been known to write a judgement. He has been selected though he has never demonstrated that he is capable of writing a learned judgement. He is known for his activities as a prosecutor. He previously served the party in power as Attorney General, directing the prosecution of both Anwar Ibrahim trials.

Anwar Ibrahim now requires delicate spinal surgery as a consequence of his injury. The plea of guilty establishes the civil liability of both the police assailant and the Malaysian government. The government refuses to allow necessary medical treatment to be performed, and this adds to the perceived liability of the officers who deny the treatment.

If the home minister is found to be the primary official making the decision, then he, along with the government, will be held legally responsible for any further harm that may come to Anwar Ibrahim. Events suggest that the full nature of this contingent liability has not been made clear by the advisors to the leaders of the government.

back to list of articles