Higher courts have no set standard for accepting/rejecting defense evidence: Judge Abdulla

Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed has said that higher courts have no standard based on which they accept or reject evidence produced by the defense.

Judge Abdulla made the comment on Wednesday, during the trial of three individuals suspected of harming police officers during the protest which took place May 1.

Two of the suspects: Ahmed Unais of Seenu Atoll Hithadhoo - Iruvai and Ibrahim Ibad of Seenu Atoll Hithadhoo – Australia both denied the charges against them.

Given that the two suspects had denied charges, state was provided with three days to come up with evidence against them to prove the case.

When asked by Judge Abdulla whether the defense wanted to present evidence, defense lawyer Ahmed Nazim said that he wanted to present evidence as they had not committed the crime they had been accused of.

Prosecutor General Muhthaaz Muhsin retorted that defense could not present any evidence saying the suspects had not committed the crime.

Judge Abdulla said that the Criminal Court to date accepted evidence presented by defense that was deemed admissible; but that higher courts accepted evidence whatever it may be, and that therefore any evidence presented by defense in the case would be accepted.

PG Muhthaaz challenged the words of the judge saying that, “if that is the case then courts must act upon all decisions made by higher courts.”

The third suspect in the case – Ibrahim Rasheed of Galolhu Freshlight has not hired a defense lawyer, and was given more time to hire one.

All three stand accused of assault using weapons.

Unais was accused of using a helmet to assault a police officer; while Ibad was accused of forcefully taking the helmet worn by a police officer and using the helmet to assault him; and Ibrahim Rasheed of using a traffic cone on the ground to assault a police officer.

PG Muhthaaz on Wednesday requested for all testimony on the case to be given anonymously, as it would be fairly easy to identify witnesses even if some information was omitted from the statements, by looking into how the incidents took place and comparing it with the testimony given.