THE trial judge in Najib Razak’s SRC International case has failed to consider any inference that is favourable to the accused before finding him guilty, the former prime minister’s lawyer, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, told the Court of Appeal.

“Even if you do not believe the defence, if it raises a doubt, you must give the benefit of the doubt to the accused,” Shafee said, referring to Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.

Last July, Nazlan convicted Najib of abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving RM42 million of SRC International’s funds.

The Pekan MP was sentenced to 12 years’ jail and fined RM210 million.

Najib, 67, is currently appealing against his conviction and jail sentence, and is out on bail of RM2 million in two sureties.

“The fact is that in criminal law, the law demands that the inference that is most favourable to the accused must be taken by the judge,” Shafee told the media outside the courtroom after the defence concluded its submission today.

He said the main thrust of the defence’s argument during the past six days of its appeal submission was that Nazlan had completely ignored the doubts presented by the defence.

“We have shown that what the learned judge did was, during the prosecution case, he just went through the prosecution case without detailed examination of the serious flaws that we have pointed out,” he said.

“The law requires you to do a maximum evaluation, meaning examine the credibility of any witness that the prosecution brings, the veracity of the testimonies and so forth. He didn’t do that at all.

“But during the defence, he suddenly became very analytical. Every statement from the defence, he examined them whether or not it can be true.”

He also said the defence has given various solid reasons that the trial judge’s finding at the end of the prosecution case was wrong.

“They are not reasons that we picked up from a mere misconstruction of a sentence by the judge,” he said.

“The judge (has) misconstrued concepts in law and as a result, he misunderstood what basically amounts to proof.

“I am not going to say that we are going to win and all that, but I can see that the judges (in the Court of Appeal) here are very troubled because these are fundamental criminal justice systems.”

The hearing continues tomorrow with the prosecution submitting a counter-reply before a three-man bench comprising judges Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, Has Zanah Mehta and Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera. – April 13, 2021.