TIFF OVER BID TO RECALL WITNESS
Lawyer objects to conducting officer’s application to have pathologist present latest findings from tests on EMRS van
AN argument between the conducting officer and a lawyer broke out during the inquest into the death of firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim yesterday over whether to recall pathologist Dr Ahmad Hafizam Hasmi from Kuala Lumpur Hospital (HKL).
Deputy public prosecutor Faten Hadni Khairuddin, acting as the conducting officer, applied on Friday to recall the witness who had conducted the postmortem examination on Adib together with HKL Forensic Department head Datuk Dr Mohd Shah Mahmood.
However, counsel Syazlin Mansor, who was representing the Housing and Local Government Ministry and the Fire and Rescue Department, objected to the application.
Faten Hadni, in her submission, said they wanted to recall Dr Hafizam as they needed to present the latest findings from tests on the Emergency Medical Response Service (EMRS) van.
“We had requested to postpone the proceedings on April 11 to
give the experts an opportunity to re-examine the EMRS van, which they did the next day.
“The coroner is entitled to know the results (from the test) to assist the court in making the right decision for this inquest. We are not representing any party... merely doing our job as the conducting officers,” she said.
Syazlin, however, argued that recalling Dr Hafizam would be wasting the court’s time as the witness would repeat his statement and findings from his previous testimony.
“We had already cross-examined the witness (Dr Hafizam) and clarified any unclear facts in the post-mortem report.
“I believe if the court allows the witness to be recalled, he will only give a rebuttal statement. Every expert will have his or her own findings and they can agree to disagree.”
Syazlin said every witness would have the opportunity to testify and present their respective theories to the court.
“If he (Dr Hafizam) wants to conduct a test, it should be done before he testifies in this court,” she said, adding that Dr Hafizam had been given ample time to examine the deceased’s body, clothes, and the EMRS van.
Faten Hadni then argued that the latest test had been conducted after previous witness Professor Dr Shahrom Abdul Wahid had disparaged the post-mortem report by stating that there were conflicting summaries in it.
“Our main purpose to recall the witness (Dr Hafizam) is to present the latest finding from the tests, which, to a certain extent, can counter Dr Shahrom’s theory,” she said.
Syazlin, however, said the application to recall Dr Hafizam had clearly shown that they had taken sides.
“This should not happen. If they call Dr Hafizam for a second time, I will have to recall Dr Shahrom to counter the pathologist’s latest theory. When is this going to end?”
Coroner Rofinah Mohammad fixed today to deliver her decision.
Earlier, Dr Mohd Shah and Dr Hafizam, the 27th and 24th witness respectively, testified that injuries sustained by Adib were not consistent with those resulting from being kicked or punched.
They also ruled out the possibility that Adib had been pulled out from the EMRS on the night of the incident as no bruises or marks were found on the left part of his body.
However, Dr Shahrom, who is a retired pathologist from Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, claimed that the pathologist had made an incorrect hypothesis in the post-mortem report about how Adib sustained his injury.
He also dismissed the findings made in the report which concluded that Adib could have voluntarily alighted from the EMRS and was hit on his back by the EMRS door before being hurled and ending up on a road kerb.
It was claimed that Adib, 24, died from severe injuries sustained after he was allegedly assaulted by rioters at the Sri Maha Mariamman temple in Subang Jaya on Nov 27.
He was part of an emergency response team despatched to the scene to douse a vehicle that had been torched.
Despite showing signs of recovery while being treated at the National Heart Institute, Adib died on Dec 17.