by Alex Josey
Mr Coomaraswamy: Precisely, my Lord. I want to say why this evidence was admitted.
His Lordshjp: It is not objected to. You may well want it in, for all I know. If you do object, I want to deal with that one way or another. But you have not objected, so I am not going to cut it out.
Mr Coomaraswamy : I certainly want it in.
His Lordship: But let us say no more at this juncture. What I am concerned about is that he said that he had never been asked to change the story, and the jury has heard it.
Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, my Lord, in view of your Lordship’s observations, I still feel that I should explain myself and my conduct at this stage. The reason is that your Lordship has used words like ‘scandalous’ and ‘appalling’.
His Lordship: Yes, Mr Coomaraswamy, and I repeat them.
Mr Coomaraswamy: These words will create a certain impression, and I feel, my Lord, not only for my personal sake, but for the sake of my client, I should attempt to remove any impression created by these words.
His Lordship: I shall myself tell the jury when I come to sum up, when I reach that stage, that the issues they are concerned with are clear and simple and nothing else. But I certainly, if you feel that you are labouring under any sense of injustice, Mr Coomaraswamy, I shall certainly allow you to continue your cross-examination if you like. If you wish to add anything at the end of it you may certainly so do.
Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, in view of the words used by your Lordship just now, I don’t think I need pursue the matter any more.
His Lordship: It is entirely your responsibility, Mr Coomaraswamy. I shall tell the jury what they have to consider and nothing else.
Mr Coomaraswamy: As your Lordship pleases.
His Lordship: But don’t let that debar you from saying anything at this juncture that you think you should be allowed to say, provided it is relevant and admissible, and has a bearing on the case. I will give you every attention.
Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, in that event, my Lord, I should like a few minutes to consider the position.
His Lordship: You needn’t make the decision at the moment, but I will leave the matter before you at any time during the continuance of this hearing.
Mr Coomaraswamy: As your Lordship pleases.
Mr Coomaraswamy continued with his cross-examination of the boatman, Yusuf, until the end of the day’s proceedings when he asked the judge’s permission to make a personal statement. “My Lord,” he began, “I must with the greatest respect differ from your Lordship as to what is the proper conduct of an advocate and solicitor in the circumstances I was placed— ”
His Lordship: What were the circumstances?
Mr Coomaraswamy : As to the taking of the statement from this witness.
His Lordship: I am told he was given some milk by somebody and he got $10, and he got another $30. This is impropriety on the part of a solicitor. What were the circumstances? Why did you do it?
Mr Coomaraswamy: That is what I am about to explain.
His Lordship: I am sure you did it with the best of intentions.
Mr Coomaraswamy: The position was that I was informed of an attempt being made to interfere with this witness, and I thought one way to ensure things would be to have a statement recorded from him.
His Lordship: Surely the right thing to do was to lodge a complaint forthwith with the State Advocate-General to the effect that information has come to your ears that this key witness has been interfered with? Surely this was the proper thing to have done?
Mr Coomaraswamy: Unfortunately, in this particular case there were circumstances which made it impossible for me to communicate with the State Advocate-General. I don’t want to disclose these reasons now. In any case, my Lord, I think I am straying from the point, but I have always known it to be the position, and this is the attitude taken by the Law Society in England with the full approval of Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, that there is no property in a witness whether it is a witness for the defence or a witness for the prosecution. The defence can, as soon as a man is arrested for an offence, serve subpoenas on everybody and thereby deprive the prosecution of witnesses. Now, there are some persons who hold the view that the position in Malaya is different because of certain provisions, but I see no reason to make that distinction, and, in fact, before interviewing the witness, I did consult a very senior criminal lawyer with a considerable criminal practice.
His Lordship: Even the greatest of criminal lawyers are known to make mistakes. Some of them have been warned by the Law Society. But I accept your point. In the whole of my extensive career both at the Bar and on the Bench, I have never heard of this being done before.
Mr Coomaraswamy: May I continue?
His Lordship: If you were informed of an attempt to do so, surely you should have communicated with the Public Prosecutor’s Department? Why didn’t you do it?
Mr Coomaraswamy: There were very good reasons why I shouldn’t.
His Lordship: We are talking in riddles. I accept that what you did you did with the best of intentions, and that so far as you are personally concerned you feel that you did what was right.
Mr Coomaraswamy went on to tell the judge that he took the precaution of having another lawyer at his office, somebody from an entirely different office and totally unconnected with the case, who was there throughout the interview, and the purpose for which he was there was also known to the witness, and there was absolutely no question of tampering with the witness in any way.
His Lordship: It is not suggested in your case. You say it was done under circumstances over which you had no control. I accept your explanation.
Mr Coomaraswamy: In that case I wouldn’t pursue this point.
His Lordship: And I shall tell the jury in the clearest terms what their duties are in this case. If there is anything you would like me to add to what I am going to say on this please let me know. I will do it.
When, days later, Justice Buttrose began his summing up he did in fact refer to this matter. He recalled that he had queried the propriety and the wisdom of Mr Coomaraswamy interviewing the key witness for the prosecution after Sunny Ang has been charged with murder. The judge said that he had accepted Mr Coomaraswamy’s explanation, in that, according to his lights at any rate, he did what he thought was proper in the interests of his client. “You will,” said the judge, “remember that the boatman, in his evidence, said that he never changed his story, nor did anyone ever ask him to do so ... you will dismiss that incident from your mind entirely.”
Before the fifth day of the trial was over the judge had been told to his astonishment that Yusuf had been brought to the Supreme Court by Sunny Ang and a lawyer on 29 October 1964 (14 months after Jenny had disappeared), to swear an affidavit.
His Lordship: The accused himself came to Pulau Brani to see you?
Yusuf: Yes.
His Lordship: Who was the lawyer he took you to?
Yusuf: I do not know the name of the lawyer, my Lord. He is hunch-backed and bald-headed.
His Lordship: Let me look at those affidavits. (He examines them.) Presumably somebody from Lim and Lee. Who is this hunch-backed lawyer?
Mr Coomaraswamy: Mr Lim Tiong Quee, my Lord.
His Lordship: More remarkable evidence, Mr Coomaraswamy.
Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, this was long before the accused was arrested.
His Lordship: I am once again startled—not by you, but by what has been going on in this case. Very well, the jury will no doubt form their own conclusion. Anyhow, the accused approached you personally at Pulau Brani, brought you back and you saw somebody from Lim and Lee. And you were then, presumably, asked to swear an affidavit. Right?
Yusuf: Yes.
Evidence was also given that Sunny Ang made an affidavit (which was not read out in Court) and that Yusuf in his affidavit said he agreed with it when it was read over to him.
Crown Counsel: Did the girl speak to the accused in any language other than English?
Yusuf: The gi
rl spoke one or two words in Malay.
Crown Counsel: Can you remember what they were?
Yusuf: ‘Banyak chantek pandang dalam ayer.’ (Very beautiful under water.)
Crown counsel: The rest was in English which you do not understand?
Yusuf: That is so.
Crown Counsel: Your affidavit confirms that what Jenny said to the accused was true: how do you explain that, if you don’t know what she said?
Yusuf: Well, I believed the accused when he told me so.
Later, Yusuf was questioned about Sunny Ang’s conduct. Crown counsel reminded him he had made a statement to Malaysian Adjustment (an insurance investigation agency) that Ang was actually weeping. In another statement he said he did not know whether the moisture on Ang’s face was tears or sea water.
Yusuf: I remember that he was weeping because the tears came out.
Crown Counsel: Now you say he was in tears?
Yusuf: Yes.
Crown Counsel: You saw tears: did you hear him crying?
Yusuf: No, I did not hear him.
Crown Counsel: Those tears or water you saw. What was the volume? How many drops? Did they flow fast and furious?
Yusuf: I merely saw tears over this part of the face below the eyes.
His Lordship: Just a little moisture that you saw?
Yusuf: Yes.
His Lordship: Which appeared to you to be tears having come from the eyes?
Yusuf: Yes.
Vernon Bailey, a marine officer attached to the Singapore Marine Department, gave evidence that the channel between the two Sisters Islands is not very wide. The narrow channel he described as ‘something in the nature of a funnel’.
His Lordship: A funnel between the two reefs, is that it?
Bailey: Funnel between the two islands and between the two reefs.
His Lordship. Which makes it a more constricted funnel?
Bailey: It makes it a more constricted area, the funnel. By nature of the channel between the islands the water is almost pushed in.
His lordship: Sucked in?
Bailey: Sucked in and blown out the other end.
His Lordship: It blows out?
Bailey: Yes, accelerates and blows out and you get whirls and eddies which are sort of circular motions of the water, not to be confused with a whirl, a circular motion of water.
His Lordship: Of some force, of some severity?
Bailey: Of some considerable force.
On Friday, 7 May, the sixth day of the trial, Sunny Ang’s 15-year-old brother, William, was called by the prosecution to give evidence that Sunny had taught him to scuba-dive. He had been scuba-diving for six months and had read Sunny’s books on the subject. He said that Sunny had warned him about the hazards.
Crown Counsel: What were the hazards against which he warned you?
William Ang: The hazards were mainly caused by pressure. Well, when you are diving and you are about to go up at say from 50 feet, the pressure below is always greater than the pressure above, so that as you go higher the air in your lungs will expand. So you must release some of the air when you go up, or else your lungs will, with the air inside, expand and burst your lungs. Therefore, it is very important to go up very slowly.
The green flipper was produced and crown counsel asked the witness if he recognized it.
William Ang: I think I do.
Crown Counsel: That was one of the two, which you borrowed from David Benjamin Woodworth?
William Ang: I think so.
David Benjamin Woodworth, a student, was a classmate of William Ang in 1963, and he gave evidence that he lent William two pairs of flippers.
Crown counsel: Is that one of the green pair you lent him?
Woodworth: Yes.
Crown Counsel: And when you lent it to him in what condition was it?
Woodworth: I think it was in good condition.
Crown Counsel: Was the strap burst?
Woodworth: No.
Crown Counsel: Or cut in any way?
Woodworth: No.
David Henderson, specially flown out from England for the trial, said he was a senior aircraftsman at RAF Changi and a member of the RAF Changi Sub-aqua Club when he dived down and found the green flipper in the straits of Pulau Dua on 3 September 1963, a week after Jenny’s disappearance. The boatman Yusuf and a police party were present. He went down twice the day before.
Mr Coomaraswamy: My Lord—
His Lordship: Just a moment, Mr Seow. Yes, Mr Coomaraswamy?
Mr Coomaraswamy: Fully conscious of any possible repercussions that may arise by my standing up so frequently—
His Lordship: I am delighted to see the enthusiasm with which you are conducting the defence, Mr Coomaraswamy.
Mr Coomaraswamy: I mean, I should be regarded as an irritating counsel by you—
His Lordship: You may by your colleagues, but certainly not by myself and my fellow brother judges.
Mr Coomaraswamy went on to complain about the legal technicalities concerning the notice of this evidence.
Henderson continued with his evidence of the second day’s diving, on 3 September 1963. He said he made two dives wearing full equipment, about 11:00 AM.
Crown Counsel: On your first dive did you find anything?
Henderson: No.
Crown Counsel: What was the depth you reached on the first dive?
Henderson: Forty-five feet.
Crown Counsel: That was at sea bottom?
Henderson: Yes.
Crown Counsel: For how long were you under?
Henderson: Fifty-five minutes.
Crown Counsel: You came up to change your tank?
Henderson: Yes, I did.
Crown Counsel: Then you went down again?
Henderson: Yes.
Crown Counsel: What depth did you reach this time?
Henderson: Forty-five feet.
Crown Counsel: Did you find anything?
Henderson: I found a green-coloured flipper.
Crown Counsel: I see. Where?
Henderson: On the sea-bed.
His Lordship: How did you find it? How was it on the sea-bed?
Henderson: It was lying on the sea-bed at that particular point— or rather rough rocks, or what-have-you. It was lying beside those rocks.
His lordship: Was it in any way covered or was it just quite open to view?
Henderson: Quite open to view.
His Lordship: Not covered with sand or mud?
Henderson: There was a little mud over it, but not very much.
His Lordship: Not very much. It was quite plain to the eye was it?
Henderson: Yes.
Crown Counsel: You handed it subsequently to the police?
Henderson: Yes.
Crown Counsel: Can you describe the condition of the flipper as you found it that day?