Judgment reserved

Press, 16 July 1986, Page 1

Judgment reserved

NZPA staff correspondent Hong Kong A Malaysian magistrate yesterday reserved judgment and will announce tomorrow whether the case of two New Zealanders charged with offending the religious sensibilities of a Muslim should proceed, said the defence lawyer in Kuala Lumpur. The magistrate will also rule then oh a prosecution move to amend the charge against one of the

defendants, Julia Mary Miessen, aged 27, of Christchurch, the lawyer said. Miss Miessen and Grant Terrence Nesdale, aged 28, of Hamilton, first appeared last week on charges of wounding the religious feelings of Mohamad Mahmood, a businessman, on May 15 at Kajang, about 25km south of the Federal capital of Kuala Lumpur.

The Court heard on Tuesday that the pair were alleged to have told Mr Mohamad: “Islam is not true, Koran is not true and prophet Mohamad is not original.” The defence lawyer, Yeoh Chong Keng, told NZPA from Kuala Lumpur that the prosecution had moved to amend the charge against Miss Meissen when both sides made their final submissions in Kajang Court yesterday. The amended charge would be that Miss Mlessen had “made a gesture in the sight of the complainant, to wit nodding your head and smiling in order to show your approval and your agreement to the words uttered by Nesdale,” that Islam and the Koran were not true and that the Prophet Mohamed was not original; -. ■ , ■; ....

Mr Yeoh said the magistrate would announce tomorrowmorning his decision on the amendment and his judgment as to whether the trial should continue.

If the magistrate felt a case had been made against the two New Zealanders, the defendants would be then called to testify. Otherwise the charges against the two would be dismissed. Mr Nesdale and Miss Miessen work through,the Assemblies of God Church and were in Malaysia for the practical part of their missionary training when they were arrested on May 19. The lawyer for the two New Zealand missionaries this morning urged the court in Kajang to acquit them, Reuters reported.

Mr Yeoh said in his submission that Mr Nesdale, and Miss Miessen, had not deliberately wounded the feelings of Mr Mohamad. ' “By the admission of Mohamad, the couple’s conversation with him was aimed at attracting him to Christianity and that the whole discussion took place under a cordial and friendly atmosphere,” Mr Yeoh said.

He said Mr Nesdale had proved he had no, malice against Mr Mohamad because he went to see . him on June 5 to apologise. Mr Mohamad could have mistaken what was spoken to him by the English-speaking missionaries as his proficiency in English was suspect and he could not prove that he had an educational distinction in English. Mr Mohamad should have lodged a report against the missionaries immediately if they ’had wounded his feelings and not five days after the Incident, Mr Yeoh said. The prosecution had also failed to produce documentary evidence in court against the defendants, he said. Mr Mohamad had told the Court the pair had shown him words such as “Koran was not true, Islam was not true ■ and Prophet Mohammed was unoriginal.”' «. He (SaidrMr Mohamad had tried to turn .a personal matter into a Muslim community issue by getting the religious leaders to involve themselves, in the case. ;

Reuters reported from Kajang that Mr Yeoh said Mr Mohamad, a devout Muslim, was liable to. lntepret discussion on any other religion as antiIslam.

The State Prosecutor, Zaini Abdul Rahman, said in his submission that Malaysian law did hot bar anyone from preaching his religion, but sensitivity towards Islam should be observed.

, Mrs Zaini said the apology made by Mr Nesdale to Mr Mohamad clearly indicated that he knew he had htfrt the complainant’s feelings.

If . convicted, the defendants face up to a year in jail, an unspecified fine, or both, in the case which is the first to be brought under Malaysian law.

They are free on bail of 2000 ringgit (about $1375) and were staying in the small, mainly Muslim town of Kajang, Mr Yeoh told NZPA.