Kota Kinabalu: There was no secrecy surrounding the identity of Student A’s mother, who had been described as a “halimunan” deponent in the inquest into Zara Qairina Mahathir on social media.
Counsel Joan Goh, representing Student A, now being charged in the Children’s Court in connection with the incident involving Zara, clarified that the court’s notes of proceedings clearly recorded the full name and identity card number of Student A’s mother.
Advertisement
Goh explained that even members of the media were allowed to attend the hearing in open court.
“It is not correct to say that her identity was hidden. The notes of proceedings state her full name and IC number, and the press was present in full view in open court,” she said.
However, she emphasised that publication is governed by strict legal provisions, which prohibit not only the naming of a child involved in proceedings but also the disclosure of any information that could lead to the child’s identification.
“If the mother’s full particulars are published, it would breach the law because by publishing her details, people would be able to identify Student A. That is why there is a difference in publication between deponents 62, 63 and 64,” she said.
Goh added that while photographs were allowed to be published in some other cases involving child offenders, the Zara inquest was handled more strictly due to social media implications, including reported threats.
“This case is stricter because of the social media effect, where threats were made and so on, which would affect the five alleged offenders and their family members. Hence, there is a need for strict compliance,” she said.
She maintained that, in principle, the press should be allowed when child offenders testify, so their accounts can be responsibly reported.
“Their story needs to be told and, with responsible reporting by the press, everyone gets a chance to tell their side. But the court maintained no press during that testimony,” Goh said, adding that no VVIP was involved in the matter.
Goh had clarified in a TikTok video which stated that there was “special treatment” given to the 62nd deponent compared to other adult deponents, as her details were not published.
The video also referenced the “halimunan” deponent in the inquest to determine the cause of Zara’s death.
