Judiciary at receiving end of misplaced blame, says Chief Justice

The Star

The judiciary is at the receiving end of misplaced blame each time a court decision is not well received by the public, said Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat  in her speech at the Opening of Legal Year 2024 on Monday (Jan 15).  Read more at http://tinyurl.com/mwhf5u6m  WATCH MORE: https://thestartv.com/c/news SUBSCRIBE: https://cutt.ly/TheStar LIKE: https://fb.com/TheStarOnline

Transcript

00:00 [Music]

00:18 There is another example which relates to how the judiciary is unjustifiably painted as the villain

00:24 for the actions or inactions of another body in the justice system.

00:30 In particular, in the recent past, including last year, the public prosecutor made the decision to withdraw

00:36 criminal charges against certain high-profile individuals.

00:40 These decisions were not particularly received well by the public, but a large part of the blame was put

00:47 on the judiciary for making the only available consequential orders upon the withdrawal of such charges.

00:55 Under Article 145, Clause 3 of the Federal Constitution, the attorney general, who is also the public prosecutor,

01:02 has the discretion to institute conduct for discontinuing any proceeding for an offense other than before a short accord.

01:11 When the public prosecutor decides to withdraw charges, the courts only have one of two very limited consequential options.

01:19 Depending on the facts, these two options are either granting an order of discharge not amounting to a quiddur,

01:26 popularly called DNAA, or a discharge amounting to an quiddur, which can be called a DAA.

01:33 The courts cannot turn around and insist to the public prosecutor that a charge remain.

01:39 Each of them, the judiciary and the public prosecutor, have their own constitutionally demarcated constitutional functions

01:47 and both must be adjudged fairly for the exercise of their powers to the exclusion of the other.

01:55 And yet, when a charge is withdrawn, the judge making the only available consequential orders is painted as corrupt,

02:03 sometimes as incompetent, or sometimes both.

02:07 What the public fails to understand is that the person responsible for the decision is the public prosecutor and not the courts.

02:15 It is often the courts that are chastised for such decisions and this erodes public confidence in the judicial system.

02:23 Having stated these examples, we must ask, how can we ensure the continued protection and integrity of the justice system

02:32 and preserve public confidence in our judicial institution?

02:37 Beginning with internal judicial independence, it is my view that a judge must continue to hear cases without fear of favour

02:44 and without any motivations, hope of reward, or any bias.

02:49 In particular, I would like to remind myself, as well as my sister and brother judges,

02:54 about the crucial significance of stare decisis, or the doctrine of judicial precedent.

03:00 Courts lower in the judicial hierarchy must remember to abide by precedents set by higher courts.

03:07 The Federal Court, being the apex court, must continue to remember that it cannot depart too easily from precedent,

03:15 especially so if a previously decided authority is questioned not so long after it was decided.

03:23 The Federal Court cannot afford to be inconsistent as that interferes with the public who organises their affairs upon legal clarity and certainty.

03:34 [Applause]

03:37 [Music]

03:48 [Music]

03:49 [Music]

Category

Transcript

Recommended