Wasn’t charge defective in law?

I MOVED from “total disbelief” to “somewhat relieved” when I followed two news items in The Star “Gallows for killing burglar” Oct 19, and “Groups: Review death sentence” Oct 20).

I was at first shocked with the verdict and then a little assuaged when the National Crime Prevention Foundation, and two residents’ association representatives called for a review of the case.

But going by what I read in the news report, I am still puzzled by some questions:

First, it is common knowledge that mens rea (criminal intent) is a vital ingredient in all murder charges.

How could the two brothers have entertained such an intention when in fact the burglar had fallen into their room and then attacked them.

He startled the brothers when he fell from the ceiling. In their defence, the brothers fought back, with their bare hands. They had no weapons on them.

Second, how could the Bar Council say “people should not take the law into their own hands”?

Shouldn’t the brothers defend themselves when attacked?

Third, which officer in the Attorney-General’s Chambers sanctioned this charge, knowing full well that the brothers were acting in selfdefence?

Fourth, why didn’t the court assign counsel for the defendants for a charge as serious as murder and for which a death sentence was a distinct possibility? Finally, wasn’t the charge defective in law? Only answers to these questions can turn “total disbelief” to “total relief”.

PHIL MATHEWS Kuala Lumpur