13th July - Everyone Affected by Reader's Comment Contempt of Court case against Malaysiakini? CJ clarifies matters?

Malaysiakini and its Chief Editor is facing contempt of court - not for something its reporters wrote and published but for 5 comments made by its readers(others) - and many of us also have our own Facebook page/groups, Twitter, What's App, and various other social media, where anyone else can post any kinds comments 

Will we also be haul up for contempt of court for some other person's views and comments? Will we be charged for a crime for some other person's comments or views or 'shares'...?

Should we NOW not allow any friend or others to comment or share their views, news, etc FREELY? Should we also not allow people to post 'Happy Birthday' wishes on our FB accounts, that can be seen by others.

DO WE END OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO POST ANYTHING ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA APPS/ACCOUNTS - for fear that we may also be running the risk of being before the Federal Court one day defending an allegation of contempt of court?

WELL, that may be one of the main point that the Federal Court will be deciding on 13th July in the Malaysiakini contempt case.

WELL, things will surely change after 13th July - and this will be a judgment of the Federal Court, which will bind all other lower courts, until some other Federal Court over-rules or changes the decision.

FREEDOM OF OPINION...FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION...freedom of sharing info/views... of the ordinary person in Malaysia is yet again in Focus. 

Many of us, when we come across an 'interesting' view or information, we tend to share it to our friends and contacts - not that we AGREE with the said comment...not that we know 100% whether it is true or fake...We share because it is 'interesting' ...hoping also that we may get some feedback from friends and others who may agree, disagree, etc or even tell us that it is 'Fake'...It is but discussion...communication...engagement with people...it is a process of 'verification'(to find out whether others will confirm or tell us it is false...'.

Communication and social interaction helps formulate views, opinions and positions of the Malaysian people. It draws attention or HIGHLIGHTS suspected crimes, wrongs and abuses, which when it comes to relevant authorities may lead to INVESTIGATIONS to verify the truth of such suspicions.  

Many of the said comments in the Malaysiakini contempt case, seems to be affected by the public perception generated in recent discontinuation of proceedings by the Attorney General(Public Prosecutor) particularly in the high profile cases of Riza Aziz and Musa Aman.

Lack of information and clarification by the relevant authorities did not help. Now the Chief Justice comes out and sheds some light in the matter - pointing to the fact that the Courts cannot do anything if the public prosecutor chooses  to discontinue proceedings ...This clarification, if it came sooner, would really help public understanding ...

The court does not have the power to direct or urge the public prosecutor to file or withdraw charges against any party in criminal cases,” said Chief Justice Tan Sri Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.

“The court cannot force or push the prosecution to proceed with a trial on a charge brought in court, if the prosecution has decided to drop or withdraw the charge,” she said. “This is the legal situation in our country,” she said in her speech at the taking-of-oath of office and loyalty ceremony of Federal Court and Appeals Court judges, as well as judicial commissioners held at the Conference Hall in the Palace of Justice.

She said just because there were third parties who disagreed with the prosecutor’s decision not to proceed with the charges which had been filed in court, this does not mean that court or judges had acted dishonestly, conspired, were in favour of any particular party or were involved in corrupt practices.

“It is deeply saddening and extremely disturbing that of late, the judiciary had been repeatedly criticised only because the prosecutor, in exercising their discretionary power under Article 15 Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution, had decided to withdraw some charges in some high-profile cases,” said Tengku Maimun.Tengku Maimun said the decision could only be made by the public prosecutor, not by other parties, including the court.

Tengku Maimun said readers have no way of confirming the validity of what had been written and would assume that whatever written on social media were true.

In her speech, she stressed that the Judiciary had never taken the stand that judges should not be criticised instead she said, the Judiciary was ready to accept constructive criticism on decisions made by the courts.

The Attorney General have discontinued proceedings - one usual acceptable reason, is that a current evaluation of available evidence made him/her believe that there was insufficient evidence to sufficiently proof the guilt of the accussed beyond reasonable doubt. 

Prosecutors should never charge anyone unless he/she believes that there is SUFFICIENT evidence to proof that the 'accused' is guilty > at the end of the day, it is the Courts that decides whether the accussed have been proven to be guilty 'BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT'

A discontinuance of proceedings will naturally result in a DISCHARGE not amounting to an acquittal. The same accussed could then later be charged in some future date, if and only if, sufficient evidence are collected.

ACQUITTAL should never happen - because no one is certain whether new evidence or sufficient evidence can arise some time in the future. Missing witnesses could be found. Crucial witnesses overseas who did not agree to come to the Malaysian courts and give evidence as witnesses, may suddenly change their mind and be willing to appear as a prosecution witness. No one knows the future - hence the possibility of being able to charge again must not be forever be extinguished. An Acquittal means CANNOT again charge for the same offence ever. 

Acquittal should only be ordered at the end of a full trial, or at the close of the prosecution's case. That is only fair and just.

Acquitting now, before trial completed or started, because the current prosecutor have no intention to charge again in the future is FLAWED - because the next Public Prosecutor may decide otherwise. The AG(Public Prosecutor) during the BN ruled decided not to charge Najib...but then the later prosecutor, after evaluating available evidence, decided otherwise, and Najib was charged in court..

Now, Malaysiakini is facing contempt charges at the Federal Court  because of some comments made by some readers...If only our CJ had clarified much earlier, it may have changed people's understanding - hence no such comments about 'perceived wrongs' by the courts...

See earlier related posts:- 

The Malaysiakini Contempt Judgment -denying application to set aside leave - 2/7/2020, Judgment discloses 'contemptous' comments?

Will the Federal Court finally abolish 'scandalizing of the court/judiciary' when they get the opportunity in the Malaysiakini case?

CJ: Court has no power to get prosecutor to withdraw charges

Friday, 10 Jul 2020 07:22 PM MYT

Chief Justice Tan Sri Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat speaks to the media at the Palace of Justice 

in Putrajaya January 3, 2020. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

PUTRAJAYA, July 10 — The court does not have the power to direct or urge the public prosecutor to file or withdraw charges against any party in criminal cases,” said Chief Justice Tan Sri Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.

“The court cannot force or push the prosecution to proceed with a trial on a charge brought in court, if the prosecution has decided to drop or withdraw the charge,” she said.

“This is the legal situation in our country,” she said in her speech at the taking-of-oath of office and loyalty ceremony of Federal Court and Appeals Court judges, as well as judicial commissioners held at the Conference Hall in the Palace of Justice.

She said just because there were third parties who disagreed with the prosecutor’s decision not to proceed with the charges which had been filed in court, this does not mean that court or judges had acted dishonestly, conspired, were in favour of any particular party or were involved in corrupt practices.

“It is deeply saddening and extremely disturbing that of late, the judiciary had been repeatedly criticised only because the prosecutor, in exercising their discretionary power under Article 15 Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution, had decided to withdraw some charges in some high-profile cases,” said Tengku Maimun.

Tengku Maimun said the decision could only be made by the public prosecutor, not by other parties, including the court.

Tengku Maimun said readers have no way of confirming the validity of what had been written and would assume that whatever written on social media were true.

In her speech, she stressed that the Judiciary had never taken the stand that judges should not be criticised instead she said, the Judiciary was ready to accept constructive criticism on decisions made by the courts.

“The Judiciary is responsible to the community and any constructive criticism can further improve quality in executing justice,” she said.

However, Tengku Maimun said the criticism should be honest and with reasonable courtesy within the limits of the law.

She added that judges should not pick and choose disputes that they wish to hear.

“We adjudicate all cases that come before us. We are therefore bound to hear cases which attract public attention and which involve political figures, from whichever side of the divide,” said Tengku Maimun who added that judges do not decide cases based on popular public views but decide cases based on evidence and the law.

She said the reality is that, no matter how impartial judges are or how detached judges are from politics, their decisions would be viewed from a political perspective or with a political flavour, because unfortunately, public perception of the Judiciary is shaped by the political landscape.

“In that regard, we must be prepared to withstand public scrutiny and be prepared to swallow the hurtful, unfair and baseless allegations against us, if our decisions do not tally with public opinion,” she said. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 10/7/2020