Press Release | Concerns Persist Regarding Choice of Lead Prosecutor and Lead Counsel |
Thursday, 30 October 2014 04:35pm | |
The
Malaysian Bar read with interest and quiet amusement some of the recent
comments made regarding the position of the Malaysian Bar with respect
to retired judges appearing in court as counsel. The stance of the
Malaysian Bar on this issue is as stated in the
resolution passed at our Annual General Meeting held on 15 March 2014. The resolution, which is reproduced below, is clear and speaks for itself.
Notwithstanding
the concerns of the Malaysian Bar on this issue, which were articulated
in court, the Federal Court has ruled that there is nothing presently
in law that prohibits a retired judge from appearing as counsel in
court. See Federal Court Civil Application No 08-438-06/2013.
Applicant: MTM Millenium Holdings Sdn Bhd; Respondents: 1. Pasukhas
Construction Sdn Bhd; 2. I-Innovations Construction Sdn Bhd.
The
Malaysian Bar also notes the recent issues or controversies involving
the propriety or otherwise of the appointment and appearance of the lead
prosecutor in the Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim appeal. Again, the Federal
Court has decided that there is nothing improper in this regard.
Although
for different reasons, a common issue and concern of the Malaysian Bar
relating to both the appointments and appearances of the lead prosecutor
for the Respondent and the lead counsel (a retired judge) for the
Appellant in the said appeal is that justice might not be done, or might
not be perceived to be done.
Apart
from the above, the Malaysian Bar will make no further comment whilst
the hearing of the appeal is ongoing in the Federal Court.
Christopher Leong
President
Malaysian Bar
30 October 2014
68th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar
Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel
Saturday, 15 March 2014
Resolution regarding retired judges of the superior courts appearing as counsel in court
(A) WHEREAS
it is a fundamental principle of the Malaysian legal system that not
only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done; thus perceptions
and appearances matter.
(B) WHEREAS
it is a principle of antiquity in common law jurisdictions that a
retired judge of a superior court should not practise as counsel before
the judges who were previously his colleagues or his junior to him on
the Bench.
(C) WHEREAS that tradition and convention was likewise observed in Malaysia for decades, until in recent years.
(D) WHEREAS
retired judges now frequently appear as counsel, not only in the
superior courts, but also in the subordinate courts and even to argue
chamber applications.
(E) WHEREAS
such conduct may involve the retired judge/counsel purporting to rely
upon, distinguishing or criticising decisions made by him while he was
on the Bench; worse, there could arise a situation of such a retired
judge invoking the principle of stare decisis to submit that the Court is bound by some decision of his handed down when he was a judge.
(F) WHEREAS
such conduct may have the effect of intimidating the Bench and worse,
it could give the perception that the said retired judge/counsel and his
client have an advantage over other counsel and adverse parties.
(G) WHEREAS such conduct may adversely affect public perception as to the administration of justice.
(H) WHEREAS
the co-proposer of this motion, Tan Sri V C George and five other
retired Judges of the superior courts have written a letter to the
President of the Malaysian Bar dated 2 March 2014, expressing their
view, concern and objection with the practice of some retired Judges of
the superior courts appearing as counsel in Court.
(I) In
the context, retired Judges of the superior court having failed to
honour tradition and convention by appearing as counsel, they must now
be prohibited or restricted by law from continuing with such
unacceptable conduct.
The Malaysian Bar therefore resolves:
(1) That
a retired judge of the superior courts should be prohibited or
restricted by law from appearing as counsel in court, and to achieve
that objective calls on the incoming Bar Council to propose an amendment
of the Legal Profession Act 1976 to the Attorney General for urgent
presentation to Parliament; and
(2) The Bar Council takes all reasonable steps to educate the public on the reasons for the proposed amendment to the law.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment