DOCSLIB.ORG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. S-05-113-05/2012 Between Public Prosecutor A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. S-05-113-05/2012 Between Public Prosecutor A IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. S-05-113-05/2012 Between Public Prosecutor ……Appellant And Bernadito L. Alenjandro Jr ...…Respondent [In the matter of High Court of Sabah and Sarawak, in Sandakan, Sabah. Criminal Trial No. S-45-04-2011] Between Public Prosecutor And Bernadito L. Alenjandro Jr CORAM AZAHAR MOHAMED, JCA LINTON ALBERT, JCA DAVID WONG DAK WAH, JCA 1 GROUNDS OF DECISION The 14th January 2011 began on a happy note for the respondent who was invited to one Joel Mateo’s birthday party at his estate quarters, opposite to where the respondent stayed. He and his wife went early in the morning to help in the preparations at Joel Mateo’s house. In conjunction with the birthday party there was a long drinking session which ended in a fight resulting in the respondent inflicting serious injury to Renato S. Harder (the deceased) who succumbed to the injury and less serious injuries to James Jimeno who survived. The respondent was subsequently charged for offences under the Penal Code. The first charge read as follows : “That you, on the 14th day of January 2011, at around 7.00 pm to 8.00 pm, at Kongsi Pekerja No. 15D, Ladang Mewah 2, in the District of Kinabatangan, in the State of Sabah, did commit murder by causing the death of one RENATO S. HARDER (M) and thereby commit an offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code.” The second charge read : 2 “That you, on the 14th day of January 2011, at around 7.00 pm to 8.00 pm, at kongsi Pekerja No. 15D, Ladang Mewah 2, in the District of Kinabatangan, in the State of Sabah, had voluntarily caused hurt to one JAMES JIMENO (M) by means of a sharp parang and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 324 of the Penal Code.” The respondent was acquitted of the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code pursuant to the first charge but found guilty and convicted of the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) of the Penal Code and sentenced to a term of 18 years imprisonment. The respondent was, however, convicted under the second charge and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment to run concurrently with the imprisonment term for the offence under section 304(a) of the Penal Code. The prosecution appealed in respect of the first charge contending that the judicial commissioner had misdirected himself on both fact and law but for which the respondent would not have been found guilty and convicted of the lesser offence under section 304(a) of the Penal Code but 3 guilty and convicted as charged for murder under section 302 of the Penal Code. The prosecution advanced three main grounds before us and we shall deal with each ground in the order it was presented before us. The first ground revolved around the inconsistent findings of fact on the credibility of the relevant witnesses for the prosecution and the weight given to their evidence at the prosecution stage and the incongruous findings at the end of the defence case. Learned DPP illustrated the inconsistency by setting out verbatim the relevant passages of the judgment of the judicial commissioner which is reproduced as follows: “This is my ruling at the end of the prosecution’s case. Having heard the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution, seen and considered the various exhibits, read the written submissions of the prosecution and the defence and having subjected inter alia the prosecution’s case in its totality to a maximum evaluation, carefully scrutinized the credibility of each of the prosecution’s witnesses, I find that the prosecution has proven a prima facie case against the accused and I therefore order the accused to enter this defence in respect of the 2 charges under sections 302 and 324 of the Penal Code.” 4 At the end of the defence case a different finding was arrived at : “I have observed the demeanour and veracity of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defence. I prefer the testimony of the accused and his wife. The accused testified in a straightforward manner and I find that his testimony was credible and capable of belief. As regards the testimoinies of the prosecution witnesses especially PW5 and PW11, I find that their testimonies are not credible based on other circumstances and evidences of the case and they being friends of the deceased, might not tell the truth and instead seek to implicate the accused in the death of their friend, the deceased. (emphasis added)” At the end of the prosecution case the trial judge ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case in relation to the first charge based on the following findings which is reproduced verbatim from the judgment of the judicial commissioner : 5 “(a) The deceased is dead. The deceased’s body had been positively identified by his sister (PW10) during the post- mortem. She had also lodged a police report (Exhibit P69) to correct the real name of the deceased as Renato S. Harder. (b) Dr. Jessie Hiu @ Jessie Dorey Hiu Chen Chen (PW6), the pathologist, testified that the deceased’s death was caused by the pypovolaemic shock due to or as a consequence of chop wound on the neck. Besides her oral testimonies, her evidence is corroborated by the post-mortem report which was admitted and marked as Exhibit P7. Hence, the death of the deceased was caused by injuries inflicted on him. (c) There is sufficient evidence to show that the deceased’s death was caused by the injuries inflicted by the accused namely:- i. Alfredo Barlaan (PW11), saw the accused slashed the deceased on his left neck with 6 parang. James Jimeno, PW5 also witnessed the incident and was injured during the incident. ii. The parang (P10) which is undisputedly the weapon used in this case was discovered from the accused by Jumal Sakile (PW12) who later handed it to his wife. The parang later discovered by one Hendrik Dadi (PW14) who put it at the bucket of the vehicle, which later was seized by PW16, Sjn Ismail. iii. The T-shirt (P61) which was discovered from the information given by the accused was sent to the Chemistry Department for DNA profiling and according to Rita Tie Ung Ha (PW7), the chemist and her report (P22) contained the bloodstain that belonged to the deceased. 7 (d) There is evidence to show that the accused had the intention to cause the deceased bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.” Learned DPP relied on the case of PP v. Kenneth Fook Mun Lee & Another Appeal [2006] 1 CLJ 499 which in our view, is grossly inapplicable in the circumstances of the present appeal. In that case, the accused, for no apparent reason walked towards the deceased who was a total stranger and with utter callousness and cruelty shot her in the chest while she was still in her car. She died. The High Court convicted the accused for an offence under section 304(b) of the Penal Code but on appeal, the Court of Appeal substituted it with a conviction for murder under section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to death by hanging. Mohd Ghazali Yusoff JCA, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal said at pages 555-556: “In this instant appeal, on the evidence, we are of the unanimous view that the learned trial judge had misdirected himself in fact and in law and ought to have found the 8 respondent guilty on the original charge of murder. The facts are sufficient to bring the case within the ambil of s. 300(d) of the Code and the act of the respondent would fall within the definition of murder. The invocation of s. 300(c) of the Code by the learned trial judge is altogether erroneous. Intention is not a necessary element of an offence under s. 300(d). All that is needed is knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. The emphasis in s. 300(d) is on the imminently dangerous character of the act itself. Further, s. 300(d) is usually applied where the act of the offender is in general disregard for human life and safety. What is clear from the evidence is the respondent did not know the deceased. He discharged the gun in absolute callousness towards the result. The act of the respondent cannot fall within the purview of s. 304(b) of the Code. He has committed by him clearly fall under s. 300(d) of the Code. All the evidence proved beyond doubt that he had performed the act knowingly and voluntarily and hence must be guilty of an offence under s. 302 of the Code.” 9 In the present appeal, the facts are totally different and even though there were two versions, neither was anywhere remotely close to section 300(d) of the Penal Code. The two versions were set out in the judgment of the judicial commissioner as follows: “There were two versions on how the deceased was slashed. The prosecution witnesses i.e. PW5 and PW11 said the accused came into the house and straight away slashed the deceased who was holding a microphone singing karaoke. On the other hand, the accused said (as he demonstrated in court) he was hit at the back of his head by someone and as a result of the said hit he stumbled and in the course of falling down towards the direction of deceased who was standing in front of him, he waved his parang which he held in his right hand at the chest level towards his right hand side, turning to his back and lastly chopped to his front and followed with his fall with face down.” 10 We, therefore, find no merit in the argument that the trial judge made two inconsistent findings, one at the end of the prosecution case and another at the end of the defence case because it is trite that at the end of the defence case the trial judge must re-evaluate all the evidence of the prosecution and defence and ask himself whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt or, as the case may be whether the defence had cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Court-Annexed Mediation Practice in Malaysia: What the Future Holds
    ARTICLES & ESSAYS DOI 10.6092/issn.2531-6133/6751 Court-Annexed Mediation Practice in Malaysia: What the Future Holds † CHOONG YEOW CHOY & TIE FATT HEE & CHRISTINA OOI SU SIANG TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. Introduction; 2. Court-Annexed Mediation – The Motivations and the Mechanism of the Programme; 3. Provisions on Court-Annexed Mediation; 4. Practice Direction No. 5 of 2010 (Practice Direction on Mediation); 5. Rules for Court Assisted Mediation; 6. The Mediation Act 2012; 7. Role of the Courts and Judiciary in Court-Annexed Mediation; 8. Overcoming the Challenges; 9. What the Future Holds; 10. Conclusion. ABSTRACT: It is an indubitable fact that the use of mediation as a form of dispute resolution has gained traction across the globe. More importantly, the practice of mediation has also been transformed through the establishment of several techniques for formalized mediation. This article will provide insights into one of these avenues for formalised mediation, namely, court-annexed mediation practice in Malaysia. It will first discuss the motivations that led to the introduction of such a programme. This will be followed by an analysis of the operational aspects of the practice. A matter of utmost importance concerns the role of the courts and the judiciary in court- annexed mediation and will be considered in great detail. This article will then offer suggestions on how some of the challenges that exist and are inherent in this particular method of formalised mediation could be overcome. These views are expressed with the hope that court-annexed mediation can function as an effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism under the umbrella of the Malaysian courts.
    [Show full text]
  • AI Sentencing in Sabah and Sarawak
    Artificial Intelligence in the Courts: AI sentencing in Sabah and Sarawak VIEWS 40/20 | 18 August 2020 | Claire Lim and Rachel Gong Views are short opinion pieces by the author(s) to encourage the exchange of ideas on current issues. They may not necessarily represent the official views of KRI. All errors remain the authors’ own. This view was prepared by Claire Lim and Rachel Gong, a researcher from the Khazanah Research Institute (KRI). The authors are grateful for valuable input and comments from Aidonna Jan Ayub, Ong Kar Jin, and representatives of the courts of Sabah and Sarawak and SAINS. Corresponding author’s email address: [email protected] Introduction Attribution – Please cite the work as The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated the need for many follows: Lim, Claire and Rachel Gong. 2020. Artificial Intelligence in the Courts: industries to undertake digital transformation. Even the AI Sentencing in Sabah and Sarawak. traditionally conservative judicial system has embraced Kuala Lumpur: Khazanah Research this ‘new normal’, for example, by holding court trials Institute. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0. online1. However, adapting to technological change is not foreign to the Malaysian judiciary. Earlier this year, even Translations – If you create a translation before the pandemic forced industries to embrace digital of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This transformation, the Sabah and Sarawak courts launched a translation was not created by Khazanah pilot artificial intelligence (AI) tool2 as a guide to help judges Research Institute and should not be considered an official Khazanah with sentencing decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL REPORT 2018 ANNUAL REPORT 2018 CONTENTS I
    JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTSJAC COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2018 ANNUAL REPORT 2018 CONTENTS i CONTENTS PAGE CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 - 3 BACKGROUND 4 - 7 q History of Establishment q Members of the Commission MEETINGS 8 - 10 q Judicial Appointments Commission Meetings q Selection Meetings APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES 11 - 17 q Selection Criteria q Selection Process q Appointment of Superior Court Judges v Federal Court Judges v Court of Appeal Judges v High Court Judges v Judicial Commissioners JUDICIAL ACADEMY 18 - 47 q Training Programmes Conducted in 2018 q Publication Activities for 2018 IMPROVING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 48 THE SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMISSION 49 q Roles and Functions q Financial Allocation JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD ANNUAL REPORT 2018 CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD 1 CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD Transparency and integrity are important dimensions that guarantee justice based on the principle of the Rule of Law. As the most important element in the practice of separation of power doctrine in Malaysia, judicial institutions need to be a reference model to legislative and executive institutions. Hence, the presentation of the Annual Report of the Judicial Appointments Commission Year 2018 is not merely to comply with the requirements of Section 31 of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act (Act 695). In fact, it is a form of manifestation towards realising the responsibility of institutionalising the spirit and practice of high transparency and integrity. This report is an important channel for disseminating information on the functions, performance and achievements of the Commission in 2018 to all stakeholders, especially law practitioners and the public at large.
    [Show full text]
  • DR LOURDES DAVA RAJ CURUZ DURAI RAJ V. DR MILTON LUM SIEW WAH & ANOR
    JE34/2020 10 September 2020 Dr Lourdes Dava Raj Curuz Durai Raj [2020] 5 MLRA v. Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah & Anor 333 DR LOURDES DAVA RAJ CURUZ DURAI RAJ v. DR MILTON LUM SIEW WAH & ANOR Federal Court, Putrajaya Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ, Rohana Yusuf PCA, Azahar Mohamed CJM, David Wong Dak Wah CJSS, Nallini Pathmanthan FCJ [Civil Appeal No: 02(i)-118-12-2018(W)] 29 July 2020 Administrative Law: Judicial review — Judicial review proceedings — Rules of natural justice — Adverse order made against person directly affected who was deprived of his right to be heard — Whether rules of natural justice breached — Whether order a nullity and ought to be set aside — Whether principle in Hong Leong Bank Bhd v. Staghorn Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals applied — Rules of Court 2012, O 15 r 6, O 53 r 4(2) The appellant (‘Dr Lourdes’) was, at the material time, the Chief Medical Service Officer and person in charge of Assunta Hospital. The 1st respondent (‘Dr Milton’) was then a Visiting Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist at the same hospital while the 2nd respondent was the Malaysian Medical Council (‘MMC’). Pursuant to a complaint by Dr Milton, the MMC charged Dr Lourdes with infamous conduct in a professional respect. An inquiry was carried out and, by a majority, the MMC found that Dr Lourdes had no case to answer. Dr Milton was dissatisfied with the outcome of the inquiry and proceeded to institute judicial review proceedings for an order of certiorari against the MMC’s majority decision. Dr Milton additionally sought a declaration that Dr Lourdes was guilty of the charge against him and that the MMC be ordered to hear his plea in mitigation and for the imposition of an appropriate sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Laporan Tahunan 2019 Suruhanjaya Pelantikan Kehakiman
    SURUHANJAYA PELANTIKAN KEHAKIMAN LAPORAN TAHUNAN 2019 SURUHANJAYA PELANTIKAN KEHAKIMAN KANDUNGAN PRAKATA PENGERUSI 1 RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF 3 LATAR BELAKANG 5 MESYUARAT 9 PELANTIKAN HAKIM 13 AKADEMI KEHAKIMAN 21 URUS SETIA 46 SURUHANJAYA PELANTIKAN KEHAKIMAN PRAKATA PENGERUSI SURUHANJAYA PELANTIKAN KEHAKIMAN PRAKATA PENGERUSI Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh. Kebebasan Institusi Kehakiman adalah asas kepada setiap sistem undang-undang di dunia, termasuk Malaysia. Justeru, proses yang mana Hakim dilantik hendaklah bersih, telus dan bertanggungjawab. Ini adalah antara alasan utama Suruhanjaya Pelantikan Kehakiman (Suruhanjaya) ditubuhkan; iaitu untuk mengukuhkan dan meningkatkan integriti institusi kehakiman dan memenuhi kehendak dan aspirasi rakyat untuk melihat ketelusan dan keadilan dalam sistem kehakiman Malaysia dipatuhi. Pembentangan Laporan Tahunan Suruhanjaya Pelantikan Kehakiman ini bukanlah sekadar memenuhi kehendak seksyen 31 Akta Suruhanjaya Pelantikan Kehakiman (Akta 695) tetapi untuk menunjukkan bahawa dalam menjalankan fungsi-fungsi statutorinya, Suruhanjaya ini mendukung kebebasan berterusan institusi kehakiman dan secara lanjutan, prinsip the rule of law. Dengan itu, saya dengan sukacitanya mengalu-alukan pembentangan Laporan Tahunan Suruhanjaya Pelantikan Kehakiman Tahun 2019. Semua pemegang taruh/ pihak yang berkepentingan termasuk hakim, pegawai kehakiman dan perundangan, pengamal undang-undang dan orang awam boleh melihat daripada Laporan Tahunan Suruhanjaya Pelantikan Kehakiman Tahun
    [Show full text]
  • In the Federal Court of Malaysia (Appellate Jurisdiction) Criminal Appeal No. 05-94-05/2017(B) Between Alma Nudo Atenza [No
    IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 05-94-05/2017(B) BETWEEN ALMA NUDO ATENZA [NO. PP: EB 920334] … APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR … RESPONDENT [In The Court Of Appeal Malaysia Criminal Appeal No. B-05(M)-132-04/2016 (PHL) Between Alma Nudo Atienza … Appellant [Passport No. EB9203346) And Public Prosecutor … Respondent] HEARD TOGETHER WITH IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 05-193-08/2017(W) BETWEEN ORATHAI PROMMATAT (PASSPORT NO.: AA 3289996) … APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR … RESPONDENT 1 [In The Court of Appeal Malaysia Criminal Appeal No. W-05(M)-389-10/2016 Between Orathai Prommatat … Appellant And Public Prosecutor … Respondent] Coram: Richard Malanjum, CJ David Wong Dak Wah, CJSS Ramly Bin Haji Ali, FCJ Balia Yusof Bin Haji Wahi, FCJ Alizatul Khair Binti Osman Khairuddin, FCJ Rohana Binti Yusuf, FCJ Tengku Maimun Binti Tuan Mat, FCJ Abang Iskandar Bin Abang Hashim, FCJ Nallini Pathmanathan, FCJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT INTRODUCTION 1. The common and central issue in the present appeals is on the constitutional validity of section 37A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (“DDA”), with reference to Articles 5, 8, and 121 of the Federal Constitution (“FC”). 2 2. Each of the Appellants in these two appeals was charged before and convicted by two different trial Judges for drug trafficking under section 39B of the DDA. However, since both appeals were premised on one common and crucial issue we proceeded to hear them together while conscious of the fact that on merits these two appeals might differ.
    [Show full text]
  • Government of State of Sarawak.Pmd
    Government Of The State Of Sarawak & Anor v. Chong Chieng Jen 1 A GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF SARAWAK & ANOR v. CHONG CHIENG JEN COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA DAVID WONG DAK WAH JCA ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI JCA B ZAMANI A RAHIM JCA [CIVIL APPEAL NO: Q-01-210-06-2014] 7 APRIL 2016 TORT: Defamation – Allegation of mismanagement of State’s financial affairs – C Suit by State Government and State Financial Authority – Whether parties lacked locus to maintain action for defamation – Whether common law principle propounded in Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd (Derbyshire principle) applicable – Whether proceedings by or against Government regulated by statute – Whether s. 3 Government Proceedings Act 1956 allows Government to sue D for defamation by way of civil action – Whether a statutory right – Whether Derbyshire principle consistent with art. 10(1) Federal Constitution – Civil Law Act 1956, s. 3(1) – Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd v. Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn Bhd CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action – Government proceedings – Defamation – Allegation of mismanagement of State’s financial affairs – Suit by State Government E and State Financial Authority – Whether parties lacked locus to maintain action for defamation – Whether common law principle propounded in Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd (Derbyshire principle) applicable – Whether proceedings by or against Government regulated by statute – Whether s. 3 Government Proceedings Act 1956 allows Government to sue for defamation by way F of civil action – Whether a statutory right – Whether Derbyshire principle consistent with art. 10(1) Federal Constitution – Civil Law Act 1956, s. 3(1) – Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd v. Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn Bhd & Anor WORDS & PHRASES: ‘other provision’ – Civil Law Act 1956, s.
    [Show full text]
  • HEVEAPLAST MARKETING SDN BHD V. SEE LEONG CHYE & ORS and OTHER APPEALS COURT of APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA DAVID WONG DAK WAH JCA
    Heveaplast Marketing Sdn Bhd [2017] 2 CLJ v. See Leong Chye & Ors And Other Appeals 43 A HEVEAPLAST MARKETING SDN BHD v. SEE LEONG CHYE & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA DAVID WONG DAK WAH JCA UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA B ZAMANI A RAHIM JCA [CIVIL APPEALS NO: B-01-489-12-2014, B-02-2129-12-2014, B-01-33-01-2015 & B-02-173-01-2015] 26 FEBRUARY 2016 C LAND LAW: Indefeasibility of title and interest – Fraud – Sale and purchase of land – Denial by original owners of sale of land – Whether title obtained by fraud – Whether immediate purchaser protected against claim by original owner – Whether purchaser’s title to land defeasible – National Land Code, s. 340 LAND LAW: Indefeasibility of title and interest – Transfer – Title to land obtained D by fraud – Land sold to subsequent purchaser – Undertaking by vendor to refund in event of failure to effect transfer – Whether complete lack of consideration – Whether refund ought to be ordered LAND LAW: Charge – Indefeasibility of interest – Title to land obtained by fraud E – Whether charge of land tainted by fraud – Whether chargee was subsequent purchaser – Whether chargee was purchaser for good consideration and without notice – Whether protected by deferred indefeasibility under s. 340 of National Land Code Heveaplast Marketing Sdn Bhd (‘Heveaplast’) purchased a land, the subject F matter of the dispute, from See Leong Chye and See Ewe Lin (‘See brothers’), who had in their possession the original manual issue document of title (‘IDT’). Heveaplast obtained a loan from the United Overseas Bank (‘UOB’) and pursuant to the agreement, Heveaplast became the registered owner whilst UOB the registered chargee of the land.
    [Show full text]
  • To Read Divers Paths to Justice
    Divers Paths to Justice: Legal pluralism and the rights of indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia Divers Paths To Justice Legal pluralism and the rights of indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia Marcus Colchester & Sophie Chao (eds.) with Ramy Bulan, Jennifer Corpuz, Amity Doolittle, Devasish Roy, Myrna Safitri, Gam Shimray & Prasert Trakansuphakon 1 Divers Paths to Justice: Legal pluralism and the rights of indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia Divers Paths To Justice: Legal pluralism and the rights of indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) The Center for People and Forests (RECOFTC) Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) Copyright © AIPP, FPP, RRI, RECOFTC 2011 The contents of this book may be reproduced and distributed for non- commercial purposes if prior notice is given to the copyright holders and the source and authors are duly acknowledged. Published by Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) and Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) AIPP: www.aippnet.org FPP: www.forestpeoples.org RECOFTC: www.recoftc.org RRI: www.rightsandresources.org Editors: Marcus Colchester & Sophie Chao Writers: Marcus Colchester, Ramy Bulan, Jennifer Corpuz, Amity Doolittle, Devasish Roy, Myrna Safitri, Gam Shimray & Prasert Trakansuphakon Cover design and layout: Sophie Chao Printed in Chiang Mai, Thailand by S.T.Film&Plate Cover photo: Inaugural meeting of the SPKS in Bodok, Indonesia/Marcus Colchester ISBN: 978-616-90611-7-5 2 Divers Paths to Justice: Legal pluralism and the rights of indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia 3 Divers Paths to Justice: Legal pluralism and the rights of indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia Table of Contents Acknowledgments …………………………………………………………6 Foreword: Legal pluralism in Southeast Asia – insights from Nagaland Gam A.
    [Show full text]
  • Taming the Unruly Horse: the Treatment of Public Policy
    TAMING THE UNRULY HORSE: THE TREATMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY ARGUMENTS IN THE COURTS Kota Kinabalu, 19 February 2019 The Honourable Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon Supreme Court of Singapore The Right Honourable Datuk Seri Panglima David Wong Dak Wah, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Yang Berhormat Datuk Ahmad Abdul Rahman, Deputy Speaker of the Sabah State Legislative Assembly The Honourable Justice Dato’ Mary Lim Thiam Suan, Judge of the Malaysian Court of Appeal Honourable Judges and Judicial Commissioners Judicial officers, Members of the Bar Distinguished guests, Ladies and gentlemen I. Introduction 1. The legal scholar Ran Hirschl has argued that “[t]he judicialization of politics—the reliance on courts and judicial means for addressing core moral I am grateful to my former law clerks, Ho Jiayun and Torsten Cheong, and my colleague, Assistant Registrar Scott Tan, who assisted me with the research for and preparation of this address. predicaments, public policy questions, and political controversies—is arguably one of the most significant phenomena of late twentieth- and early twenty-first- century government”.1 If one considers the lengthy and varied catalogue of examples cited in his article, one would be hard pressed to disagree.2 2. In Hungary, the Constitutional Court struck down one-third of all laws it reviewed in the 1990s, including the so-called Bokros Package of austerity measures which were deemed too harsh because they enacted drastic cutbacks on the post-communist welfare system.3 In Canada, the Supreme Court was asked to consider the ultimate political question of whether the province of Quebec could secede from the State of Canada.4 In the United States, the recognition of a right to privacy as an unenumerated constitutional right5 has made the Supreme Court the epicenter of the Culture Wars, turning it into the principal battleground for debates over contraception,6 abortion,7 sodomy laws,8 and – most recently – same sex marriage.9 But it is perhaps in India where this trend has reached its zenith.
    [Show full text]
  • SLS Statement for Opening of the Legal Year 2021
    OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2021 STATEMENT BY ROGER CHIN PRESIDENT OF THE SABAH LAW SOCIETY In 2001, Tan Sri Richard Malanjum, working together with the Sabah Bar members, revived the age-old tradition of Opening of Legal Year in Sandakan. Some 8 years later, the Opening of the Legal Year was revived in Peninsula Malaysia in 2009 during the tenure of Tun Zaki Tun Azmi. Both Openings of the Legal Year have since become important annual events in the Malaysian legal calendar. An Opening of the Legal Year is not simply a ceremonial occasion, but provides an opportunity for the legal community to take stock, and reflect on matters critical to the administration of justice within our legal system and the rule of law. It is an important occasion for views to be given on legal matters that are of significance to the community. The Bar, as one of the cornerstones of the justice system should and must speak on such matters. The Sabah Law Society (SLS), as one of the guardians of the law, will always speak on these matters as the Sabah Bar plays and important part in the rule of law in Sabah and Malaysia and so it is with much regret SLS will only be able to provide this statement as the Opening of the Legal Year for 2021 will not be held due to circumstances arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic for the first time in 2 decades. 2020 will forever be immortalised as the year marred by Covid-19. As the world watched in dismay at the havoc wreaked by Covid-19, what held us together in Malaysia is the belief that nothing is insurmountable.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study
    MEDIATION IN THE NEW DISPUTE RESOLUTION LANDSCAPE; A CASE FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF ITS APPLICATION IN MALAYSIA NURAH SABAHIAH BINTI MOHAMED FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2013 MEDIATION IN THE NEW DISPUTE RESOLUTION LANDSCAPE; A CASE FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF ITS APPLICATION IN MALAYSIA NURAH SABAHIAH BINTI MOHAMED THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2013 UNIVERSITI MALAYA ORIGINAL LITERARY WORK DECLARATION Name of Candidate : Nurah Sabahiah Mohamed (I.C. No: 710625-03-5286) Registration/ Matric No: LHA 070003 Name of Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Title of Thesis: Mediation in the New Dispute Resolution Landscape; A Case for the Enhancement of Its Application in Malaysia Field of Study: Mediation I do solemnly and sincerely declare that: (1) I am the sole author/writer of this work; (2) This Work is original; (3) Any use of any work in which copyright exists was done by way of fair dealing and for any permitted purposes and any excerpt or extract from, or reference to or reproduction of any copyright work has been disclosed expressly and sufficiently and the title of the Work and its authorship have been acknowledged in this Work; (4) I do not have any actual knowledge nor I do ought reasonably to know the making of this work constitutes an infringement of any copyright work; (5) I hereby assign all and every rights in the copyright to this Work to the University of Malaya (“UM”), who henceforth shall be owner of the copyright in this Work and that any reproduction or use in any form or by any means whatsoever is prohibited without the written consent of UM having been first had and obtained.
    [Show full text]