The Anwar's Verdict: Scandalising Our Court

Hantu Laut

It is indeed sad that many Malaysians continue to scandalise our court, alleging interference from the executive to sway judgement in favour of the government.

Strangely, the Malaysian court had not taken any action to protect its dignity and independence on the many allegations of bias and prejudices in cases involving Anwar and members of the opposition.

Unfair criticism alleging bias in court decisions can construe contempt of court. 

Disregarding court order, or in any way interfering with the way the court does its job is contempt of court and most courts take such allegations seriously and have considerable power to deal with offenders.

Why is the Malaysian court silent of such debasement and humiliation?

As much as I agree that the judiciary should be opened to criticism and comments to improve its performance, it goes without saying that allegations of corruption and bias are serious matters that the court should not ignore.

Contempt of court may differ from one country to the other, but basically are the same, can be of civil or criminal nature.

Some Malaysians thinks they are better judges than the judges in our court of law.

There are numerous articles and comments in news portal and social media on the recent Anwar's verdict that can be construed as contempt.

I am not sure whether Malaysia has specific written law on contempt or up to judges to cite contempt.

Ibrahim Ali and a blogger were cited for contempt here.

Read the following article below on contempt of court.

In this chapter, we see the ways in which the courts protect their dignity and their independence. We see the ways in which this may cause difficulties for journalists, and how these difficulties can be avoided.

______________________________________________________

What is contempt?

As we saw in Chapters 64 to 66 on court reporting, in democracies the courts decide what is true and what is not, who is in the right and who is in the wrong.

When they have decided, they usually make a decision which will put matters right. They may order a person to stop doing something which is wrong; they may order a person to pay compensation to somebody he has wronged; they may punish a person who has broken the law by fining him or sending him to prison.

Court proceedings would be a waste of time if nobody needed to do what the court told them, or if the court had no power to enforce its orders.

Contempt of court is disregarding the court's orders, or in any way interfering with the way the court does its job. Most courts take this very seriously, and have great power to deal with offenders.

There are two types of contempt - civil contempt and criminal contempt. Of the two, criminal contempt is the one which is most likely to concern the working journalist, so let us consider that first.

Criminal contempt

As we have seen, the courts can only operate effectively if they are able to enforce their will. That is the main purpose of the law relating to civil contempt. However, in order to operate properly, the courts also need to be free from outside interference and to maintain their dignity. That, too, is protected by criminal contempt.

It is the business of the legislature to pass laws, but it is the business of the courts to administer them; when members of a government try to interfere in court proceedings or to influence court judgments, they are likely to be reminded sternly that they are interfering. If they persist, they may well find themselves in contempt of court, even if they are government ministers. Nobody is above the law.

Similarly, the courts will protect themselves from interference by people attempting to bribe or threaten anyone connected with a case. They will also protect themselves from interference by journalists, and we shall look in detail in a moment at exactly what journalists may and may not write during a court case.

Courts also guard their dignity. This is not because judges consider themselves to be special people, but because they see themselves as representatives of the law itself. It is the law which must be respected by all citizens, and in order to ensure that respect, the courts insist on maintaining dignity. Courts are usually large and imposing buildings with national emblems above the bench where the judges or magistrates sit; judges often wear robes and wigs and people bow to them in court. All of these things represent the great stature and dignity of courts, which in turn are meant to encourage people to respect and obey them.

Both these things - freedom from interference and maintenance of dignity - are protected by the law relating to criminal contempt. The following things are prohibited:

Outrages on judges in court

It is criminal contempt to assault or manhandle a judge, or to throw eggs or fruits at them.

Insolence to the court

It is criminal contempt to persist in being noisy in court, or to keep interrupting the proceedings, or to refuse to answer questions which have been properly put. Even something as simple as an onlooker – or journalist - reading a newspaper in court could be regarded by a judge as insolence.

Interference with witnesses or officers of the court

Officers of the court are the judge or magistrate, the clerk, lawyers, translators, jurors (if any) and anyone else involved in hearing the case. Interference generally means threats or bribes intended to influence the way in which the person does their job - either offering money in return for the desired verdict, or threatening violence if the unwanted verdict is returned.

Any publication which offends the dignity of the court

Judges are not above criticism, but there are limits to how extreme that criticism can be. For example, it would be criminal contempt if a newspaper, radio or television report suggested that judges were habitually drunk in court, or that they took bribes.

Any publication which prejudices the course of justice

A report of a court case which gives details of the defendant's previous criminal convictions, before the end of the trial, would be criminal contempt. This is because it may prejudice the judge, magistrate or jury against the defendant, if there are many previous convictions. This would reduce the chances of a fair trial. Previous convictions (often calledantecedents or priors) may not be revealed until after the verdict has been reached. They are then considered by the court to help it to decide on an appropriate punishment.

Read more.

Judging The Judge: Deft Or Dumb ?

Hantu Laut

To err is human, judges can make mistakes, but the uproar against the judgement of two recent cases of statutory rapes is politically motivated, rather than concern for the law and the victims.

This country's politics has become the most bastardised in the region by one man's insatiable greed for power. Even the country's judges are not spared from politics, which leaves them opened to contempt.

Suddenly, every NGOs jumped on the band wagon to ridicule judges' decision on cases only peculiar to the judges and not the men in the streets.

True, the sentence must reflect the crime but there might have been extenuating circumstances that have caused the judge to consider a seemingly lighter sentence.

If one has an open mind and not become what the Malay called "Pak Turut"(follow blindly) the sentence passed by the judges is not as light as what the detractors made out to be.

In the case of national bowler Nor Afizal, the bound over sentence does not mean he gets off scot-free, a probationary period is attached to the sentence for good behaviour and should he during that period commits an offence he would face a tougher sentence for the new and initial offence. The judges also found there was no coercion, violence, brutality and the act was consensual, therefore, the non-custodial sentence. The Court of Appeal judges took upon themselves to alleviate the sentence.

In every profession there are those promoted to a "level of incompetence" and judiciary all over the world would have some sitting on the bench. 

Judges are human, they are not infallible, they can make mistakes. To err is human, to forgive divine. There is no point to continue disparaging the judges, let the law takes its course.

For the Malaysian judges who passed the judgement I salute them, they have shown they are humans and no lives have been destroyed on both sides.

Read here judging the judge.

Which Come First The Law Or The Judge's Intention ?

Hantu Laut

There would be no need for a by-election as the judge is very clear in what he says.He doesn't want another by-election.

Than! why not fine him below RM2000?

Below is the relevant section of the Penal Code that Tian Chua is charged with.

Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.

332. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a
public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant,
or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public
servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in
consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that
person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years or with fine or with both.

Do you see any minimum fine stated therein.I believe, the amount is at the judge's discretion.

Tian Chua a happy man.The BN happier still. There is no need for the BN to fight another by-election which in all likelihood they will lose.The only unhappy people are the leaders in Pakatan Rakyat.Can't show off their rising popularity.

So, which is supreme, the law or the judge's intention?

I am confused!

Damning The Judges

Hantu Laut

In every profession there bound to be bad apples and so it is with the judiciary all over the world.Corruptions and judicial misconduct in the Malaysian judiciary is minutely small compared to some other more developed nations.

The judiciary in the US revealed significant number of cases of corruptions and judicial misconduct.Some judges have either been removed from the bench or in more severe cases sent to prison.

Corruptions and judicial misconduct in our judiciary has been blown out of proportion by the oppositions.A war waged by none other than Anwar Ibrahim after his sacking as DPM/Finance Minister and imprisonment. His soreness against the administration and the judiciary can only be cured when he becomes the prime minister.

Since the whole judiciary is tainted he would have to remove every judges on the bench when he helms the nation.Whether the Agong would agree to a tribunal is yet to be seen.

The reprisal against the judiciary heighten after the March 2008 General Elections when the oppositions made significant inroad into the politics of the nation by capturing five states and denying the BN two-thirds majority in parliament.The road is set for a war of attrition against the judiciary and the executive.

In furtherance of the war against the judiciary the oppositions have engaged a former member of the bench who claimed to be an expert in constitutional law to openly attack and expatiates in contempt the judiciary with less than honourable names and accusations of incompetence, inferring them as a motley collection of judicial misfits.

Are they really that bad, wholesale? I am not sure but much of the complaints were mostly to do with Anwar criminal cases and the Perak's crisis which clearly are political in nature.None of the judges has been investigated for corruptions, judicial misconduct or other criminal act.

Many Malaysians out of ignorance value judgement the West and run down their own country just because people like Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Kit Siang, two of the most alluringly malicious opposition voices say so.

Can our judges beat the American judiciary in term of corruptions and judicial misconduct?

Maybe, NH Chan being a worldly man of wisdom can enlighten us as to where judicial corruptions are more widespread, in Malaysia or the US?

You would get an idea where we stand with our judges after reading the following articles.

1.Weed out the bad judges: More resources will help nail corrupt judges

2.Pennsylvania rocked by 'jailing kids for cash' scandal

3.The Human Cost of Corrupt Judges

4.Lawyers seek action against ‘corrupt’ judges

I believe none of our judges would go to the extreme of what those judges did in the stories above.

The damning of the judges is because of one man... Anwar Ibrahim.

This article is not a condonation of a corrupt judiciary but to show that our judiciary is not what Anwar and his gang made it out to be.

Blimey! Who's The Blimp?

Hantu Laut

I am not a lawyer, nor a judge, but I could be a juror, if the jury system exists in this country.Unfortunately, it doesn't.

However, as a businessman, I deal a lot with lawyers.There are good lawyers, bad lawyers and obviously there are also stupid lawyers.Not all lawyers are clever and coming from the same fraternity not all judges are clever either.

No matter how smart you are or how smart you looked, no one is infallible, making mistakes is as in the proverbial "to err is human" could happen to anyone. That's why we are different from the animal kingdom where an innate, typically fixed pattern of behaviour exists.....triggering instinct rather than intelligence.

I read this with much consternation.The unanimous decision of 8 judges (5 Federal Court and 3 Court of Appeal) questioned and belittled by one retired judge who probably is on the verge of senility.

He says the judgement is riddled with contradictions without actually naming what they are.“On the face of it, it sounds like they are contradicting themselves, isn’t it?” he said.“And if it’s really contradicting, then the whole judgment is rubbish,” he added.

'It sounds like?' Good of you Mr Chan.Malaysians are convinced?

Malaysian Insider reports that Chan refrained from commenting further until he had read through the full written judgment.

That kind of sums up the natural instinct of Mr Chan putting " the cart before the horse", commenting before reading the full judgement.

How could 8 judges be wrong compared to this geriatric?

I am puzzled?

It's Water Under The Bridge

Hantu Laut

DPM leaves it to A-G to decide on fresh Lingam probe

The government should not bow to opposition's demand to re-open the Lingam case. This is their tactic to continue with their campaign to inflict maximum damage on Najib and his government from now until the next election. They have run out of issues and keep banging on the same door.

What public pressure?Most Malaysians don't give two hoots about the case.The noises are coming from the oppositions and the Bar Council, less out of concern but more out of political reasons.

Assuming Lingam is charged, taken to court and won the case.What do you think the oppositions and Bar Council would say? They would still not be satisfied and would run down the court, the judges and the whole judiciary.

There would be no end to it.

Justice Must Be Seen To Be Done

Hantu Laut

Anwar Ibrahim might not be my favourite politician but I hope the rule of law will prevail in this country if the police decides to charge him.

The government  with its credibility at stake must go out of its way to ensure a fair trail for Anwar Ibrahim.None of those currently accused by him of past wrongdoings should be allowed to be involved in the case, particularly the IGP and the AG, whom he has accused of fabricating evidence in his previous sodomy case.So far the Prime Minister has kept his promise by not allowing the two to be involved.

It is also imperative that the Court and judges should have no fear to call upon any prominent figures as witnesses if the need arises.No immunity should be given to any of those holding high offices, including the PM and DPM, from appearing in court should their presence be required as witnesses.

If the government is really serious about salvaging its shrunken popularity and its inglorious reputation than it should consider taking a bold step to do what has not been done before.

Since all branches of government including the judiciary are under trail in the court of public opinion and to appease the sceptics of the impartiality of the government in the case, serious consideration should be given to appoint independent public prosecutors (foreign or local) and a trial by jury or if that is not possible than  additional judges chosen from Britain or any of the Commonwealth countries to sit with our judges to hear the case.

I hope Pak Lah will have the conscience to do what is right.

"Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done"

Is It Wrong To Say "I Am Sorry" ?

Hantu Laut

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahamd Badawi was a guest of honour at the Bar Council Dinner on Thursday.Special guests were Tun Salleh Abas, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin and Datuk George Seah.

The late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdolcadeer and Tan Sri Wan Suleiman (Pawanteh) represented by their respective families: representing Tan Sri Wan Suleiman are Puan Sri Siti Nurhayati and his son Wan Noor Azli; representing Tan Sri Eusoffe are his granddaughter Brenda Lim and her husband.Tan Sri Wan Hamzah (Mohamed Salleh) was unable to attend.

Abdullah fairly lenghty speech among other things offer to compensate the judges for the pain and loss they have endured for wrongs done to them two decades ago and he said "In recognition of the contributions of the six outstanding judges, the government has decided to make goodwill ex gratia payments to them. Gentlemen, I do not presume to equate your contributions, pain and loss with mere currency, but I hope that you can accept this as a heartfelt and sincere gesture to mend what has been".

It was reported earlier that the government will not apologise to the judges for what happened to them 20 years ago. The man who was deemed responsible for the judicial sacrilege refused to apologise stating that he wasn't the one who sacked them. The fact that he orchestrated the whole thing didn't bother him one least bit. The former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad is always in a state of denial whenever it suits him.

The sacking of the Lord President and the three judges was consequential of the court declaration of UMNO being an illegal association.The fast and furious Mahathir quickly used his authoritarian power to punish the Lord President. He was furious when the then Lord President wrote to the Agong about interference in the judiciary by the executive. The Agong agreed to appoint a tribunal to look into alleged misconduct of the Lord President.

The tribunals that removed Tun Salleh Abas and the judges that defended him were constituted of fellow judges chosen for their allegiance and compliant to Mahathir. From that day onwards the judiciary with a very compliant new Lord President had been whipped into total obedience and had to look upon the executive as its masters. It's the dawn of a new era for the judiciary .A shameful period of conspiracy, corruptions and unconscionable judgements. The 'Hall Of Justice' became the 'Hall Of Fear'. Those with money can buy justice.

Then there were shameless legal scoundrel like Mr Correct, Correct, Correct who befriended filthy rich merchants to finance and influence the appointment of judges.

The crisis of confidence in the judiciary had gone so bad some foreign companies doing business in Malaysia insisted on their legal disputes to be settled outside Malaysia.

Isn't paying ex-gratia payment or compensation a form of apology ?The Prime Minister and his deputy don't think so.So is the Oxford Dictionary.

The Oxford Dictionary defines 'ex-gratia' as "given or done as a gift or favour, not because there is a legal duty to do it"

"The ex-gratia payment does not tantamount to revisiting whatever that has been decided. It is not to be construed as any form of apology but this is our way of addressing some of the personal considerations and experiences and hardship they have gone through.It should be seen in that light and should not be construed as anything beyond that," said Deputy Prime Minister NajibRazak.

It may not be appropriate to ask Mahathir to apologise now because he believes he was right in what he had done.

Since the present government had taken the bold step to resuscitate the case and pay ex-gratia to the victims, it may be more appropriate for the government to apologise. Would an apology hurt the government more than the harm and shame it had placed on the former Lord President and the three judges ?

The government refused to apologise because of possible legal implications, I am not sure whether they can be sued if there was an official apology, which could be even more costly to the government in term of compensation.

Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi was given a standing ovation for his speech by the very same people who a few months back admonished him for failure to conduct investigation into corruptions and fixing of appointment of judges in the judiciary.

Was it a show of support for him from the legal fraternity or they were only applauding his speech. Let's hope Abdullah don't misconstrue it as a support of his leadership and would jettison his succession plan.

Paying ex-gratia and paying penitence would be more appropriate to vindicate all the victims of the injustice.

SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN THE CITY OF KUALA (reprise) 'THE DEVIL'S CURRY'

Hantu Laut

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark".

Many would have thought it was Hamlet who said that.Only Shakespearean purists and those who read Shakepeare's plays as literature in school would know it wasn't Hamlet who said it.The famous phrase was actually said by a minor character named Marcellus, an officer in the palace.

There is something rotten in the city of Kuala Lumpur.



A corrupt ex-chief judge, a crooked lawyer, a greedy businessman and a dead victim.

Shakespeare would have jumped out of his grave if he could and write his next famous play that would make 'Merchant of Venice' and Shylock pale in comparison. The RM10 million awarded to Vincent Tan was the same if not worse than the pound of flesh demanded by Shylock.Judgment written by a crooked lawyer not by the presiding judge.

Why would it be the same? Because M.G.G Pillai didn't have that kind of money and Vincent Tan can make him a bankrupt just out of spite.The crooked judge knew it, the crooked lawyer knew it and the greedy businessman knew it. The only difference between 'The Merchant of Venice' and 'The Merchant of Kuala Lumpur' was -- In Shakespeare's play, Antonio was an honest merchant and the judge was upright and honest.The judge(ex-judge) in Kuala Lumpur walked, slept and ate with the devil.

The stage is set to play out Malaysia's most shameful act of political tyranny, skullduggery, betrayal, personal greed and judicial corruption.

Judgment made in the hall of justice more criminal than the crime itself. Justice for sale to those who can pay and hell to those who can't.For some unfortunate souls the Hall of Justice had turned out to be the Hell of Justice.

Day by day the dirty linens of the judiciary and politicians are being washed in public.

A plaintiff's lawyer wrote whole judgement for a lazy judge, the ACA bribed witnesses to shut their mouths and hosts of every unimaginable sins that one could possibly have not imagined happened in an establishment of such high repute and standing. A place where people seek justice and where injustices should be repaired and delivered fairly and impartially.

Only God knows how many have suffered injustices at the hand of corrupt judges and greedy lawyers.

These are people worse than the common thief who stole a pittance and paid for his crime. Shouldn't the punishment be more severe than the poor man who had no choice but to steal to put food on his table.

A Chief Judge who sold his soul to the devil and has no shame and remorse for what he did. A liar and a devil in disguise. Didn't have an ounce of guilt that he has shamed the whole institution that protects people from people like him.

Now that he is caught with his pants down would he carry on lying in his teeth and kept the pretence of innocent ?

This could be the tip of the iceberg, there could be other cases of lawyers having written judgement on behalf of lazy judges.

It is without any doubts the moral standard has gone down to the gutter level.

"No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar". ~Abraham Lincoln

SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN THE CITY OF KUALA LUMPUR

Hantu Laut

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark".

Many would have thought it was Hamlet who said that.Only Shakespearean purists and those who read Shakepeare's plays as literature in school would know it wasn't Hamlet who said it.The famous phrase was actually said by a minor character named Marcellus, an officer in the palace.

There is something rotten in the city of Kuala Lumpur.



A corrupt ex-chief judge, a crooked lawyer, a greedy businessman and a dead victim.

Shakespeare would have jumped out of his grave if he could and write his next famous play that would make 'Merchant of Venice' and Shylock pale in comparison. The RM10 million awarded to Vincent Tan was the same if not worse than the pound of flesh demanded by Shylock.Judgment written by a crooked lawyer not by the presiding judge.

Why would it be the same? Because M.G.G Pillai didn't have that kind of money and Vincent Tan can make him a bankrupt just out of spite.The crooked judge knew it, the crooked lawyer knew it and the greedy businessman knew it. The only difference between 'The Merchant of Venice' and 'The Merchant of Kuala Lumpur' was -- In Shakespeare's play, Antonio was an honest merchant and the judge was upright and honest.The judge(ex-judge) in Kuala Lumpur walked, slept and ate with the devil.

The stage is set to play out Malaysia's most shameful act of political tyranny, skullduggery, betrayal, personal greed and judicial corruption.

Judgment made in the hall of justice more criminal than the crime itself. Justice for sale to those who can pay and hell to those who can't.For some unfortunate souls the Hall of Justice had turned out to be the Hell of Justice.

Day by day the dirty linens of the judiciary and politicians are being washed in public.

A plaintiff's lawyer wrote whole judgement for a lazy judge, the ACA bribed witnesses to shut their mouths and hosts of every unimaginable sins that one could possibly have not imagined happened in an establishment of such high repute and standing. A place where people seek justice and where injustices should be repaired and delivered fairly and impartially.

Only God knows how many have suffered injustices at the hand of corrupt judges and greedy lawyers.

These are people worse than the common thief who stole a pittance and paid for his crime. Shouldn't the punishment be more severe than the poor man who had no choice but to steal to put food on his table.

A Chief Judge who sold his soul to the devil and has no shame and remorse for what he did. A liar and a devil in disguise. Didn't have an ounce of guilt that he has shamed the whole institution that protects people from people like him.

Now that he is caught with his pants down would he carry on lying in his teeth and kept the pretence of innocent ?

This could be the tip of the iceberg, there could be other cases of lawyers having written judgement on behalf of lazy judges.

It is without any doubts the moral standard has gone down to the gutter level.

"No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar". ~Abraham Lincoln

Malaysia's Currupt Legal System - CAUGHT ON TAPE

HANTU LAUT

I first saw this video on Anwar Ibrahim's website.I posted a comment as shown below.

"How do you know the person at the other end of the line was Tun Ahmad Fairuz ? You can only hear the voice and video of VK Lingam.

Isn't it against the law to bug or tape somebody's conversation without the person knowledge and consent, I am not sure, maybe, someone can enlighten me.

Someone appeared to be holding the camera in the initial stage and by now Lingam would know who the person is,unless he himself set it up"

As usual, typical of most of our bloggers anything not in their favour, they wouldn't post.My comment was rejected by Anwar Ibrahim.

I think the question I asked is pertinent.Why the objection to post it, I just couldn't understand
.

I still couldn't figure out how this stupid man couldn't sense someone was taping his conversation only a few feet away from him.

Is this man so powerful, to be able to arrange the promotion of judges and award of Tan Sri to judges of his choice ? Was the recording made to prove to his friends and clients how influential and powerful he was, pretending as if someone had illegally taped his conversation and let that someone show it to the people he wanted to impress ? If the tape was made in 2002, why wasn't it released earlier or during the last election ? Why it took the guy who made it almost five years to see the value it would give the opposition to gain political mileage.The police must investigate the case from all angles.

I wouldn't doubt there are some dishonest judges in this country. Some judges may not be as sober (not alcohol, integrity) as they should be.The judiciary is the last bastion of justice, the failure of which, would take this country down the road to anarchy.

If the conversation was real and the tape was authentic, than this country is in deep trouble.

PROCRASTINATING JUDGES

HANTU LAUT

Procrastination: The intentional and habitual postponement of an important task that should be done now.Chronic procrastination maybe a sign of an underlying psychological or physiological disorder.

The Court of Appeal registry's record revealed that a former High Court judge did not write grounds of judgement in 33 criminal and civil cases. The judge concerned has since been promoted to the Federal Court. In two of his cases, the prisoners were languishing in death row for almost ten years due to his failure to provide ground of judgement, in the absence of which, the accused couldn't make an appeal to a higher court.

As usual and in true Malaysian style of living in denial and false sense of infallibility, the Chief Justice of The Federal Court,Tun Ahmad Fairuz asked for proof that he had elevated undeserving judges.

Maybe, those seemingly busy, overworked and procrastinating judges should delegate the writing of grounds of judgement to their underlings.

THE SHOCKING TRUTH: SHOULD THEY FACE THE TRIBUNAL ?

Lazy judges. Promoted !!! Goodness gracious me! What's going on in this country.

'JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED' William Gladstone - (1809-1898)

JUDGES FAIL WRITTEN TEST: Just write it, judges.

KUALA LUMPUR: Justice is sometimes not done in Malaysian courts even after judgment has been passed.

There are numerous horror stories of how the accused languished in prison just because judges did not provide written judgments.

In one case, a man withdrew an appeal against 12 years’ imprisonment and 10 strokes of the rotan on a dadah trafficking charge as his jail term had come to an end while waiting for the appeal to be heard.

The delay in hearing the appeal had been due to the judge not submitting a written judgment.

The worst cut of all was that the accused took all the strokes of the rotan at once before leaving jail — knowing that his sentence may have been reduced or overturned on appeal.
In another case in 1984, an accused charged with trafficking dadah was found guilty in 1988.

When his case went on appeal to the Supreme Court in December 1993 — a good five years later — the bench substituted the death sentence with 20 years’ imprisonment.

The judges had felt that the long delay in handing down the written judgment had prejudiced the accused.

If one thought that these were the worst case scenarios, there’s more.

A Federal Court judge has at least 30 outstanding judgments accumulated from his High Court days that include dadah trafficking and murder cases.

How he is going to come up with the written judgments is anyone’s guess, especially as he will also have to provide judgments on cases before the Federal Court.

This glaring weakness in the judicial system has irked the legal fraternity to the extent that calls are being made to only appoint judicial officers who can deliver written grounds on time.

One lawyer even suggested that judges who had been issued warnings not to delay written judgments should be hauled up before a tribunal to answer for their recalcitrance.

The Bar Council says the only solution to this vexing problem is the setting up of an independent judicial commission to appoint and promote judges.

Its vice-president, Ragunath Kesavan, said the problem could have been arrested early if candidates had been properly vetted before being appointed judicial commissioners.

"This is why we have been canvassing hard for the need to set up an independent judicial commission to appoint and promote judges," he said.

Ragunath said written judgments were critical in the dispensing of justice.

The council will be sending out a circular soon to get feedback from members on cases where judgments had not been provided.

This will be forwarded to the chief justice for action to be taken so that judges will put their judgments in writing.

"We hope that he will also reveal the number of outstanding judgments," he added.

Lawyer Karpal Singh said existing procedures on delivering decisions and judgments were indefinite with many judges reserving decisions after a trial.

"At the next date, they are still unable to deliver (decisions)," he said, adding that he had at least five cases that could not be appealed as judgments were not ready.

He said some gave decisions without stating reasons.

Karpal said judges who accumulated judgments simply gave up after some time as they could not recollect the facts of the case.

"One has to look into the demeanour of the witnesses to better appreciate the facts of the case.

"This would have been fresh in their mind if judgments were written soon after the trial."

Lawyer Gurbachan Singh said prisoners facing capital punishment would be under even greater pressure if their appeals could not be heard because of delayed written judgments.

He said family members were also left emotionally drained due to the uncertainty.

Relatives of the accused were sometimes not convinced when told that the appeal process had stalled because the trial judge had not provided grounds for his judgment.

Gurbachan has two cases where judges passed the death penalty without written judgments.

"And yet, the two judges who heard the cases, have been promoted to the Court of Appeal," he said.

Kuala Lumpur Bar Criminal Practice Committee chairman N. Sivananthan said some judges were causing grave injustice to convicts and to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

"One must remember justice is not only for the convicted person but also for the state," he said.

He said failure to write or delay judgments for appeal purposes was tantamount to a denial of justice.

"Whether a judge is brilliant is a secondary point. The primary consideration is that he must provide a judgment for the aggrieved party to enable them to appeal or else the administration of justice is jammed."

He said the accused has the right to finality in his or her case and a chance to exhaust all channels of appeal.

"A person charged with a criminal offence wants his name cleared soon while a party in a civil proceeding wants to enjoy the fruits of the litigation."

He said every judge had an important role in taking legal disputes to their natural conclusion.

Reported in NST