The mother of four, the youngest aged two, is willing to submit to strict bail conditions while awaiting trial.
Shafee’s argument:
- Motive for murder must still be proven against his client
- Insisted the entire incident was an accident
- Highlighted that Samirah was independent and more stable financially than her husband
- Said the suspect, a lawyer, supported all four children
- Claimed the beneficiary of Nazrin’s EPF is still his ex-wife and if Samirah was money-minded she would have asked him to change it to her
Samirah Muzaffar, who is accused of the murder of her husband, Cradle Fund chief executive officer Nazrin Hassan, is willing to be placed under house arrest, the Court of Appeal heard.
Counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah told a three-man bench that the appellant was willing to stay 24 hours in her apartment so she could take care of her four children.
The prominent lawyer told the Court of Appeal today Samirah would also accept the most stringent of restrictions so long as she is allowed to be with her children, two of whom are below the age of four.
“She is also willing to report daily to the police station,” he said here on Friday (April 26).
“My client is a mother of four, her youngest is two-years-old, and her eldest child has to sit for an examination, SPM (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia), in November,” Shafee said.
He said the incident took place in June 2018 and Samirah was only charged nine months later.
“None of the bail conditions were breached by anyone. There were no elements of absconding,” he said.
Shafee asserted that Samirah was not a flight risk and also raised doubts over details provided in reports provided by the police and the Fire and Rescue Department, and the manner investigations were carried out, saying the agencies should “get their act together”.
This was after he noted how investigators from the fire department had surrendered the crime scene back to the house owners on the day of the incident, but returned three more times and carried out more checks despite risks of evidence tampering or being cleaned.
Shafee also argued how the motive for murder must still be proven against his client, and defended her by insisting the entire incident was an accident.
He also highlighted how she was independent and financially sound on her own, ruling out the possible motive of her looking to benefit from payouts from insurance premiums or gaining funds from his Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) triggered by her husband’s death
“Her written affidavit is important to prove her innocence and the prosecution gave no reply to this.
“She is more stable financially than Nazrin, she was a working woman, a lawyer, and supported all four children,” he said as he read our excerpts from the affidavit.
“If she is money minded, his (Nazrin) EPF beneficiary is still his ex-wife, she would have asked him to change it to her (Samirah),” he added.
Meanwhile, the prosecution team, led by Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Jamil Aripin, argued the Appellate Court should not interfere in the decisions pertaining to bail by the lower courts.
He said lower courts deciding on matters pertaining to bail was them exercising their discretion of the court, and should not be interfered by other courts.
He also pointed out there were no special circumstances in Samirah’s case to warrant her being granted bail.
He again highlighted the possibility of witness tampering by the accused should she be released on bail, and citing the nature of the offence she was accused of.
Last month, Samirah, 44, and two teenagers, 13 and 16, claimed trial to the murder of Nazrin.
They had been charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code, which was read together with Section 34 of the same Act.
They had been charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code, which was read together with Section 34 of the same code. It provides for the mandatory death sentence upon conviction and is an unbailable offence.
On April 11, the Shah Alam High Court denied Samirah bail, citing the danger of witness tampering as one of the reasons.
She is appealing the decision.
Samirah was placed in detention after being charged in the Magistrate’s Court on March 4.
Her trial is scheduled to start on Sept 3.
Muhammad Shafee, in his submissions, said the High Court was “inconsistent” in dealing with the bail applications by Samirah and the two teenagers.
“She was denied bail because the court ruled that there may be tampering with the trial witnesses, who are among the family members.
“However, the court ruled in favour of the teenagers,” he said.
On March 27, the teenagers were freed on bail of RM50,000 in two sureties each.
Deputy public prosecutor Datuk Jamil Aripin said in most murder cases which carry the death penalty, the accused would not be granted bail unless there was an exceptional reason.
“In the case of Datuk Balwant Singh, who was granted bail, the police said it was a case of self-defence and the accused was of old age,” he said.
Justice Kamardin Hashim, who chaired the panel, adjourned the proceedings to May 10 pending further submissions by Jamil.
Court of Appeal judges Justices Rhodzariah Bujang and Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah also sat on the panel.
Samirah and the teenagers were charged together with Indonesian Eka Wahyu Lestari, who is still at large.
All four were accused of murdering Nazrin, 47, at a house in Mutiara Homes, Mutiara Damansara, between 11.30pm on June 13, 2018, and 4am the following day.