Court of Appeal Dismisses Peter Anthony’s Attempt to Shift Blame
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today ruled that the trial judge was correct in dismissing Peter Anthony’s attempt to shift the responsibility for forging a letter to former Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) vice-chancellor Shariff Abdul Kadir.
Justice Zaini Mazlan’s Verdict
Justice Zaini Mazlan said the trial court had found Shariff’s testimony credible. "He (Shariff) claimed that he signed the letter without reviewing its contents because he relied on businessman Shukur Din, and this was not deemed inherently implausible," he said in the unanimous judgment of the appellate court today to dismiss Peter’s final appeal against his sentence and conviction.
Motive and Credibility
Zaini said the trial court saw no motive for Shariff to act dishonestly, given his age and senior position at the university. He said it was unlikely that Shariff would have risked his status. Peter had argued that Shariff was the author of the letter, and that he (Peter) could only be deemed responsible if he had inserted the title after Shariff signed it.
Circumstantial Evidence
Zaini said the bench agreed with the sessions court’s findings that Peter had forged the letter by inserting the title, satisfying the elements of the charge under Section 468 of the Penal Code. He said it was a well-established legal principle that an appellate court should not interfere with a trial court’s factual findings unless they are proven to be erroneous.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed Peter Anthony’s attempt to shift blame to Shariff Abdul Kadir, ruling that Shariff’s testimony was credible. The trial court’s findings were upheld, and Peter’s appeal was denied. This outcome reaffirms the importance of upholding the integrity of the court’s findings and the credibility of witnesses.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What was the case about?
A: The case involved Peter Anthony, a businessman, who was accused of forging a letter to secure a contract with the Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS).
Q: What was the outcome of the case?
A: The Court of Appeal dismissed Peter’s appeal and upheld the trial court’s findings, ruling that Peter had forged the letter to secure the contract.
Q: What was the penalty imposed on Peter?
A: Peter was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He began serving his sentence today.
Q: What is the next step for Peter?
A: Peter will lose his Sabah state assembly seat unless he obtains a pardon from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, since the offence was committed in Putrajaya.