By the end of the second day 13 witnesses had given evidence for the prosecution, including K. T. Ooi, a senior partner of Braddell Brothers, the lawyer who drew up a will for Jenny. She left her estate to Ang’s mother. Ang was present when the will was drawn up. At the end of the third day, Justice Buttrose granted the defence a week’s postponement after being told that the prosecution intended to call an additional expert witness. He said it was ‘most disgraceful’ that the prosecution had not completed its investigation when the case came up for hearing. Mr Seow explained that it was only after the case had been fixed for trial that it occurred to him to call in a scuba-diving expert.
The key prosecution witness, the boatman, Yusuf bin Ahmad, gave evidence when the trial was resumed on Wednesday, 5 May 1965, the fourth day of the trial. It was during this day’s hearings that the judge described as ‘scandalous’ the circumstances which led to the defence counsel interviewing Yusuf while Ang was under arrest.
Yusuf bin Ahmad gave his evidence in Malay.
In the Lower Court, during the inquiry, Mr Seow had created something in the nature of a sensation when he revealed that attempts had been made to suborn his main witness, Yusuf. Mr Seow told the magistrate that Yusuf had been given two sums of money and a gift. Yusuf himself disclosed that he had received two sums totalling $40 and a tin of milk powder. Mr Seow protested that Yusuf had been approached by the accused’s mother, and by his brother Richard, on both occasions after Ang’s arrest. Mr Seow said, “Money, in fact, had been given to the witness and a gift in kind, before this witness was brought to counsel for the defence. Money also had in fact been given to him after he had seen Mr Coomaraswamy.” Mr Seow argued that Mr Coomaraswamy had no business whatsoever to interview or record a statement from Yusuf. “What,” he asked, “was the object of giving this witness money?”
Mr Coomaraswamy agreed that he did see Yusuf. “I did it knowing full well what I was doing and after obtaining professional advice on the matter.” He claimed he acted with the utmost propriety both as an officer of the Court and also as an honest man.
Yusuf told the Lower Court that after his interview with Mr Coomaraswamy he was given $30 by Mr Coomaraswamy to compensate for loss of earnings for that day and his fare. He said his minimum earnings a day were $3–4, and the highest was $20. He said Mr Coomaraswamy had told him not to receive any money from any other person in connection with the case.
At the trial before Justice Buttrose, this interview with Mr Coomaraswamy in his chambers was the subject of a brisk exchange between Mr Coomaraswamy and Justice Buttrose. Mr Coomaraswamy was cross-examining Yusuf. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did the accused’s mother ever at any time ask you to change your story? Yusuf: No. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did I ask you at any time to change your story? Yusuf: No. His Lordship: I would be delighted to hear that, Mr Coomaraswamy, because if you did, you would be off the Rolls, I am afraid. Mr Coomaraswamy: My Lord, I do not want to force myself into the position where I have to defend myself and defend my client at the same time. But perhaps, in view of your Lordship’s earlier statement about something scandalous, I have to make a statement- His Lordship: Well, speaking entirely for myself, Mr Coomaraswamy, when a crime has been committed and persons were being arrested in connection with it, and you know full well that the person you seek to interview is a key witness to this incident, I am appalled at what has taken place. I will say no more than that-I am appalled. Well, it has nothing to do with this case, so let us forget it for the moment. Quite apart from other considerations it is crass foolishness doing a thing like that. Can’t you see it yourself? Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, I must, I am afraid, defend myself at this stage. His Lordship: No, no. There is no question of defence-there are certain views which I should like to express at a proper stage, if necessary. You will be given every opportunity to do so. I am not going to say anything, but solely on this question of whether the accused committed this offence or not. 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.