Muhdalena aware of her actions in amok incident, court told

Deputy public prosecutor Ishak Mohd Yusof said, the former Universiti International Islamic University Malaysia student was also aware that her actions were against the law when the police approached them at that time.

"The accused could not remember being approached by two policemen but could remember the police shooting her. This shows that she was able to evaluate the situation then which is consistent with a person of sound mind," he said in the prosecution's appeal against the acquittal of Muhdalena, 30, from charges of criminal intimidation and possession of weapons in the rampage.

In his submission, Ishak also disputed the testimony of two defence witnesses, forensic psychiatric consultant Dr Raba'iah Mohd Salleh, who was of the opinion that Muhdalena was of unsound mind and was not aware of what she was doing at the time of the incident.

Ishak said Dr Raba'iah only interviewed Muhdalena a few times over a period of 11 days during the 23 days Muhdalena was held at Hospital Bahagia, the psychiatric hospital in Ulu Kinta, Perak, from Oct 12, 2012.

"In the 11 days, Dr Raba'iah informed that she only interviewed Muhdalena on certain dates while the rest were conducted by the medical officer in charge of the accused (Muhdalena).

"As such, Dr Raba'iah conducted the interview for just a few times and the quantity is insufficient in determining a person's mental state," he said.

On June 19 last year, the Putrajaya Sessions Court acquitted Muhdalena of four offences under Section 506 of the Penal Code and Section 7 of the Corrosive, Explosive Substances and Dangerous Weapons Act.

The Sessions Court found the woman mentally unstable during the incident and ordered her to be detained at Hospital Permai Tampoi, Johor at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The four charges were criminal intimidation with intent to cause grievous hurt to auxiliary police personnel Corporal Ridzuan Megat Ahmad at Complex 'B' JPM on July 9 2012; possession of a weapon; defying Ridzuan's order to lay down the weapon; and failing to follow advice to get a pass or permit before entering the premises, a restricted area.

In his submission, Ishak also said failure of the defence to call material witnesses such as Muhdalena's father, husband and family members to prove insanity on the balance of probabilities was also questionable as they were important and relevant witnesses.

"The parents and family members are important to prove the accused medical history since young while the husband is an important witness to explain her behavior while they were married," he said.

Therefore, Ishak said the Sessions Court judge had erred in acquitting Muhdalena on the grounds of unsound mind and asked the court to set aside the the decision and to convict her on the four charges.

Counsel M. Visvanathan, representing Muhdalena, argued that Dr Raba'iah is a forensic psychiatric expert witness often called by the prosecution in many other criminal cases.

"This witness was the one who confirmed that on the date and time of the incident, accused was in a state of unsound mind and not aware of the nature and the consequences of her actions.

"We humbly submit that the defence has proven the accused was at the time of the incident, mentally unsound and was not aware of the consequences of her actions," he said.