THE RIGHT AND DUTY TO HIGHLIGHT WRONGS

Anyone who sees a wrong has the right and duty to highlight the wrong

"Justice Paul said that although Justice Sri Ram was correct in saying that the Federal Court had made the wrong decision in Lam Kong Co Ltd v Thong Guan Co Pte Ltd and Capital Insurance Bhd v Aishah Manap & Anor, he was not the right authority permitted by law to express such an opinion." This was what was in the Star(26/5/2006) report entitled "Court of Appeal judge Justice Gopal Sri Ram criticised".

What is he talking about - for surely not just a Judge in a lower court but any person have the full right to voice and opinion that a decision of the Federal Court or an any court is wrong.

First we had our PM coming out and saying that BN MPs cannot support motions of the Opposition, even if the said MP feels what is stated by an Opposition member is right and good for the people. Of course BN MPs are also not allowed to criticize motions of the BN government (the executive) and this means that an MP has no real role as a peoples' representative and Malaysians must consider not voting in any BN MP if this position of the BN is not changed. We want peoples' representatives not party representatives.

Now we have a Federal Court Judge making similar comments saying that a lower court judge cannot "comment" on a judgment that he believes and/or considers wrong. What a load of crap. If someone comes across some judgment and/or law that is wrong, unjust and/or bad he is duty bound in law and in conscience to make his comments and highlight the wrong - for if not his arguments/reasons for the belief that there is a bad law and/or judgment may be lost forever (having no other effective forum for ventilation) and no one will be aware of this wrong.

Something is wrong in the Palace of Justice - and with our judiciary if we get this kind of comments from Federal Court judges.

Judges, most of all, must be very open and welcoming to criticisms about their judgments (and/or any Judgments of the higher courts) - for they are not the government of the day who have this great concern of being shown to be wrong by the opposition and/or some other party.

This should never never be the attitude of judges - and in this case from the report it seems that this Federal Court judge has also gotten personal when he is reported as saying "Justice Paul said Justice Sri Ram had himself recognised the importance of conforming with the doctrine of stare decisis in Periasamy s/o Sinnappen v PP when he ruled that High Court judges were bound by all decisions of the Court of Appeal and Federal Court despite having any misgivings as to the correctness of a particular judgment of either court.

“We can only add that the castigation of a judge of the High Court for not respecting the doctrine of stare decisis must apply with greater force to a judge of the Court of Appeal,” said Justice Paul. "

You never get personal ....at least not at the Federal Court level.

Remember all ye judges that you must and should be concerned with the upholding of the cause of justice without fear or favour - and I stress it is not upholding the legislated law of the day - but the cause of JUSTICE.

Charles Hector

---The Star Report

Court of Appeal judge Justice Gopal Sri Ram criticised
Friday, 26 May 2006, 08:23
©The Star (Used by permission)
By Raphael Wong

PUTRAJAYA: Court of Appeal judge Justice Gopal Sri Ram has been criticised for saying that two Federal Court judgments were wrongly decided.

Federal Court judge Justice S. Augustine Paul said yesterday that lower courts must abide by the judgments of the Federal Court, even if they had been decided wrongly.

He said this in a written judgment allowing the application by toll concessionaire Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against an injunction order granted to Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd by the Court of Appeal on Oct 25 last year.

Justice Paul said that although Justice Sri Ram was correct in saying that the Federal Court had made the wrong decision in Lam Kong Co Ltd v Thong Guan Co Pte Ltd and Capital Insurance Bhd v Aishah Manap & Anor, he was not the right authority permitted by law to express such an opinion.

“As both cases are judgments of the Federal Court he (Justice Sri Ram) is bound to follow them whether he agrees with them or not.

“The stand taken by him is in blatant disregard of the doctrine of stare decisis, particularly the need to comply with this fundamental rule of the common law,” he said.

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, the judgment or decision of a more-superior court has a binding effect on all subordinate courts.

Justice Paul said Justice Sri Ram had himself recognised the importance of conforming with the doctrine of stare decisis in Periasamy s/o Sinnappen v PP when he ruled that High Court judges were bound by all decisions of the Court of Appeal and Federal Court despite having any misgivings as to the correctness of a particular judgment of either court.

“We can only add that the castigation of a judge of the High Court for not respecting the doctrine of stare decisis must apply with greater force to a judge of the Court of Appeal,” said Justice Paul.

However, in the written judgment, Justice Paul agreed that both the cases of Lam Kong Co Ltd and Capital Insurance had been wrongly decided.

In the two cases, the Federal Court had ruled that any interim decision or ruling by the Court of Appeal made pending or before the end of proceedings cannot be appealed to the Federal Court.

Justice Paul said the Federal Court now did not agree with the ruling of former Chief Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah in the Lam Kong case that this was done to “filter against unnecessary appeals.”

The written decision yesterday was following the oral judgment granted by the Federal Court on March 27 this year to Metramac against an injunction order favouring construction company Fawziah Holdings to prevent Metramac from disposing of funds exceeding RM100mil.