Opposition members were unhappy with courts having to accept experts’ opinion in a case at prima facie level and they questioned the background of these experts.
Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh said the courts should have the discretion to agree with the experts.
“Why are we tying the hands of the courts? We should allow the courts to decide on the experts’ opinion.”
Minister in Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri said the courts would determine who these experts were.
“The courts will have to approve the expert and accept an expert’s opinion at the prima facie stage. The accused can still challenge his expertise.
“For instance, the expert could be a D7 unit investigating officer,” she explained.
Nancy also defended Section 425A of the CPC for a trial to continue despite the absence of the accused.
She said the trial in absentia was due to the accused absconding after being given trial dates.
“The detainee does not want to be heard after been given a date for trial. It is really arguable whether it is unconstitutional (or not).
“Alvin Tan (sex blogger) is one example. There are other cases. It doesn’t mean we deny their right for legal representation.
“There are cases involving national interests.”
The new section allows the court to conduct a trial in absentia against those who abscond after being charged for an offence.
She added that there were also cases of people who abused the process.
Ramkarpal argued that trial in absentia was against the Federal Constitution and the Legal Profession Act (LPA).
“A lawyer acting without instruction from the accused is going against the LPA,” he said.
However, Nancy revealed that in 2013, there were 1,219 “abscond cases”. The following year, the number rose to 1,560, but dropped to 1,157 last year.
Ramkarpal also brought up the issue of “chain arrests” where the suspect’s remand is extended after the four days.
Nancy said that would only happen under certain circumstances.
“It can happen at the initial stage of investigation. suspects are involved in other cases in other districts or states involving different witnesses and victims.”
She said “chain arrests” also occurred when there were police reports lodged by different victims in other states and districts.
Nancy said an extended remand was necessary to ensure suspects did not harass victims or witnesses and to enable identification for the different cases lodged.
On the removal of the good behaviour bond in serious and domestic violence cases, Nancy said Section 173A must include the nature of the offence before it could be applied.
She also pointed out that child offenders would be offered the bond.
She also clarified that there were domestic violence offences where one would have to pay compound fines but that would depend on the victim’s approval.