DOCSLIB.ORG

MALAYSIA Court Backlog And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MALAYSIA Court Backlog And MALAYSIA Court Backlog and Public Disclosure Authorized Delay Reduction Program A Progress Report August 2011 Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Sector Unit East Asia and Pacific Region Public Disclosure Authorized Document of the World Bank Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Acronyms and Abbrevations AGC Attorney General’s Chambers B/F Balance Forward (pending cases transferred from one year to the next) C Civil (abbreviation for tables) CD Compact Disc CLE Continuing Legal Education CJ Chief Justice CMIS Court Management Information System CMS Case Management System CMU Case Management Unit COA Court of Appeal Cr Criminal (abbreviation for tables) CRT Court Recording and Transcription DfID Department for International Development DNAA Discharged not Amounting to Acquittal DPP Deputy Public Prosecutor GOM Government of Malaysia ICT Information and Communication Technology IEG Independent Evaluation Group IT Information Technology JL Service Judicial and Legal Service KL Kuala Lumpur L/A Leave to Appeal (abbreviation for tables) MJU Managing Judge Unit MIS Management Information System NCC New Commercial Court NCvC New Civil Court NEAC National Economic Advisory Council NKRA National Key Results Areas PEMANDU Performance Management and Delivery Unit RM Malaysian Ringgit ROL Rule of Law USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the World Bank in response to a request from the Malaysian Judiciary under the Fee-based Service arrangement. It is intended to be an objective assessment of the Federal Court’s recent reform program aimed at reducing case backlogs and improving efficiency in the judicial services. The report was written by Linn Hammergren consultant) under the direction of Yasuhiko Matsuda (Sr. Public Sector Specialist, EASPR, and Task Team Leader) and overall supervision of Mathew Verghis (Lead Economist for Malaysia, EASPR) and Rob- ert Taliercio (Lead Economist for Public Sector Management, EASPR). The peer reviewers were David Bernstein (Sr. Operations Officer, INTSC) and Barry Walsh (LEGJR). The team acknowledges the generous cooperation extended to the Bank missions by the Federal Court as well as the National Economic Advisory Council and the Economic Planning Unit. It is especially grateful to Chief Justice Zaki Azmi for facilitating the meetings within the Judiciary and with other organizations; to his assistant, Mohd Aizuddin bin Zolkeply for setting up appointments and accompanying the consultant to all meetings; to other Justices of the Federal Court and especially Chief Judge of Malaya, Arifin Zakaria, and Justices James Foong Yuen, Raus Sharif, Abdull Hamid Embong, and Suriyadi Halim Omar for taking part in interviews and ensuring that their staff was available; to members of the Court’s administrative offices and especially Hashim Hamzah, Chief Regis- trar; to the registrars and judges of the Kuala Lumpur and Shah Alam High Courts; and to members of the National Economic Advisory Council, the Legal Affairs Division and the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PE- MANDU) of the Prime Minister’s Department, and the President of the Bar Council, Ragunath Kesavan. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND ON MALAYSIA, ITS LEGAL SYSTEM AND JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION ......................... 2 Country Background ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Judicial Organization, Staffing, and Resource Allocations ............................................................................. 3 CHAPTER II: THE REFORM PROGRAM: 2008 TO PRESENT .................................................................................. 15 Reform History and Overview of Objectives ................................................................................................... 15 Strategy ......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Reform Components ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................................... 36 Additional Reform Elements outside the Court Program ............................................................................. 37 Corruption ..................................................................................................................................................... 42 CHAPTER III: ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE 2008-2011 REFORM ............................................................................... 43 Key Indicators of Results as Used Internationally and as Adapted to the Malaysian Program ..................... 44 Other Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 56 Further Recommendations as Regards Further Data Collection and Statistical Reports ................................ 59 CHAPTER IV: LOOKING AHEAD ........................................................................................................................... 61 Areas Already Targeted to Complete the First Phase Reforms and for Work on the Proposed Second Phase ............................................................................................................................ 61 Areas Suggested for Immediate Attention or for Inclusion in Future Programs ........................................... 64 Suggestions for Additional In-Depth Studies and Assessments .................................................................... 70 Administrative Tribunals (and Other Non-Judicial Dispute Resolution Forums) ........................................... 74 Conclusions on Next Steps ............................................................................................................................ 75 CHAPTER V: IN CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 77 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 80 List of Figures Figure 1: Basic Structure of Federal Judiciary ....................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Comparison of Disposal of A-Track Cases, High Court Civil Division, KL ................................................ 53 Figure 3: Comparison of Disposal of T-Track Cases, High Court, Civil Division, KL ............................................... 53 Figure 4: Modes of Disposal for KL NCC Cases, September-December, 2009 ...................................................... 57 Figure 5: Percentage of Postponements by Parties, Criminal Cases, Kuala Lumpur, Sessions Court, July 2010 ................................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 6: Percentage of Postponements by Parties, Civil Cases, Kuala Lumpur, Sessions Court, July 201 ........... 58 List of Tables Table 1: Judicial Positions, Authorized and Filled, as of 2011 .............................................................................. 6 Table 2: Comparison of Judges-to-Population Ratio, Selected Countries ............................................................ 7 Table 3: Budgets for Judiciary, 2008-2011, in RM ................................................................................................ 12 Table 4: Comparison of PEMANDU Backlog Reduction Targets for 2010 and Court Backlog Statistics (Violent Crimes Only) ....................................................................................................................................... 41 Table 5: Backlogged Pending Cases for All Courts, End of 2009 and 2010; Numbers of “Backlogged” Cases (those filed before 2009) Still in Courtroom Files ............................................................................................ 46 Table 6: Ageing Lists by Year – All Trial Courts, Civil Cases, 2009-April 2011 ....................................................... 47 Table 7: End of Year Ageing Lists - All Trial Courts, Criminal Cases, 2009-April 2011 .......................................... 48 Table 8: Clearance Rates for Courts by Instance, for 2007-2010 ......................................................................... 49 Table 9: Comparison of Carryover, New Filings, and Dispositions – All Courts, 2009-April 2011 ........................ 50 Table 10: Monthly Pending Cases - New Commercial Court, Kuala Lumpur, September 2009-April 2011 .......... 55 Table 11: Monthly Pending Cases - New Civil Court Kuala Lumpur, October 2010-April 2011 ............................ 56 MALAYSIA Court Backlog and Delay Reduction Program F i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction 1. This study reviews the initial results of efforts
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Malaysia 2019 Human Rights Report
    MALAYSIA 2019 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Malaysia is a federal constitutional monarchy. It has a parliamentary system of government selected through regular, multiparty elections and is headed by a prime minister. The king is the head of state, serves a largely ceremonial role, and has a five-year term. Sultan Muhammad V resigned as king on January 6 after serving two years; Sultan Abdullah succeeded him that month. The kingship rotates among the sultans of the nine states with hereditary rulers. In 2018 parliamentary elections, the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition defeated the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, resulting in the first transfer of power between coalitions since independence in 1957. Before and during the campaign, then opposition politicians and civil society organizations alleged electoral irregularities and systemic disadvantages for opposition groups due to lack of media access and malapportioned districts favoring the then ruling coalition. The Royal Malaysian Police maintain internal security and report to the Ministry of Home Affairs. State-level Islamic religious enforcement officers have authority to enforce some criminal aspects of sharia. Civilian authorities at times did not maintain effective control over security forces. Significant human rights issues included: reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government or its agents; reports of torture; arbitrary detention; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; reports of problems with
    [Show full text]
  • British Overseas Territories Law
    British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Reform in the English-Speaking Caribbean: Challenges and Prospects
    Constitutional Reform in the English-Speaking Caribbean: Challenges and Prospects A report prepared for the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum January 2011 The Constitutional Design Group Principals Zachary Elkins | [email protected] Tom Ginsburg | [email protected] Lead Research Associate Justin Blount | [email protected] The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect those of CPPF or the Social Science Research Council. Constitutional Reform in the ESC p. 2 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 Historical Perspectives on Constitutional Reform in the ESC ................................................. 4 Decolonization and the Independece Constitutions ............................................................... 4 The Rise and Fall of the West Indies Federation ................................................................... 5 Characteristics of ESC Constitutions ......................................................................................... 6 Some General Notes on the Nature of ESC Constitutional Texts ......................................... 7 Executives, Legislatures, and the Judiciary ........................................................................... 8 Fidelity to the Westminster Parliamentary System ........................................................... 8 The Judiciary .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the Privy Council on Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Pitcairn Islands
    IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF PITCAIRN ISLANDS No. of 2004 BETWEEN STEVENS RAYMOND CHRISTIAN First Appellant LEN CALVIN DAVIS BROWN Second Appellant LEN CARLISLE BROWN Third Appellant DENNIS RAY CHRISTIAN Fourth Appellant CARLISLE TERRY YOUNG Fifth Appellant RANDALL KAY CHRISTIAN Sixth Appellant A N D THE QUEEN Respondent CASE FOR STEVENS RAYMOND CHRISTIAN AND LEN CARLISLE BROWN PETITIONERS' SOLICITORS: Alan Taylor & Co Solicitors - Privy Council Agents Mynott House, 14 Bowling Green Lane Clerkenwell, LONDON EC1R 0BD ATTENTION: Mr D J Moloney FACSIMILE NO: 020 7251 6222 TELEPHONE NO: 020 7251 3222 6 PART I - INTRODUCTION CHARGES The Appellants have been convicted in the Pitcairn Islands Supreme Court of the following: (a) Stevens Raymond Christian Charges (i) Rape contrary to s7 of the Judicature Ordinance 1961 and s1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (x4); (ii) Rape contrary to s14 of the Judicature Ordinance 1970 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Sentence 4 years imprisonment (b) Len Carlisle Brown Charges Rape contrary to s7 of the Judicature Ordinance 1961, the Judicature Ordinance 1970, and s1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (x2). Sentence 2 years imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention The sentences have been suspended and the Appellants remain on bail pending the determination of this appeal. HUMAN RIGHTS In relation to human rights issues, contrary to an earlier apparent concession by the Public Prosecutor that the Human Rights Act 1978 applied to the Pitcairn Islands, it would appear not to have been extended to them, at least in so far as the necessary protocols to the Convention have not been signed to enable Pitcairners to appear before the European Court: R (Quark Fisheries Ltd) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2005] 3 WLR 7 837 (Tab ).
    [Show full text]
  • Persatuan Geologi Malaysia
    WARTA GEOLOGI GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MALAYSIA PERSATUAN GEOLOGI MALAYSIA Jilid 47 APRIL Volume 47 No. 1 2021 No. 1 ISSN 0126 - 5539; e-ISSN 2682 - 7549 PP2509/07/2013(032786) RM 70.50 Warta Geologi PERSATUAN GEOLOGI MALAYSIA Editor Wan Hasiah Abdullah Geological Society of Malaysia Geological Society of Malaysia, Malaysia Council 2020/2021 Editorial Board Azman A. Ghani President : Abd. Rasid Jaapar University of Malaya, Malaysia Vice President : Ahmad Nizam Hasan Harry Doust Secretary : Farah Fazulah Abdullah Assistant Secretary : Norazianti Asmari Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands Treasurer : Lim Choun Sian Robert Hall Editor : Wan Hasiah Abdullah University of London, UK Immediate Past President : Mazlan Madon Howard Johnson Councillors : Ahmad Tariq Ahmad Ziyad Imperial College London, UK Awg Mohd Faizal Awg Mohamad Hamssin Ibrahim Komoo Maryam Syazana Dzulkefli Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia Tan Chun Hock Alfredo Lagmay Joy Jacqueline Pereira University of the Philippines, the Philippines Nur Iskandar Taib Lee Chai Peng Tan Boon Kong Yunus Abdul Razak University of Malaya, Malaysia Ian Metcalfe The Geological Society of Malaysia (GSM) was founded in 1967 University of New England, Australia with the aim of promoting the advancement of geoscience, Mohd. Nawawi Mohd. Nordin particularly in Malaysia and Southeast Asia. The Society has a membership of about 700 geoscientists based in Malaysia Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia as well as abroad. Ng Tham Fatt Warta Geologi is published three times yearly (April, August, University of Malaya, Malaysia December) by the Society. Warta Geologi publishes peer- Peter R. Parham reviewed short geological communications and original research on Earth Science. The scope includes local and regional Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia geology, conservation geology, economic geology, engineering Joy J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Equal Rights Trust Legal Brief for Kanalesingam
    The Equal Rights Trust Legal Brief For Kanalesingam Introduction 1. This legal brief is provided by The Equal Rights Trust (ERT) to Kanesalingam & Co (Kanesalingam). It sets out international and comparative law and jurisprudence arguments in relation to the current case (the Judicial Review) before the High Court in Malaya at Seremban, in which Kanesalingam & Co currently represents (1) Muhamad Juzaili Bin Mohd Khamis, (2) Shukur Bin Jani, (3) Wan Fairol Bin Wan Ismail, and (4) Adam Shazrul Bin Mohd Yusoff in their judicial review claim against (1) the State Government of Negeri Sembilan, (2) the Islamic Affairs Department of ENgeri Sembilan, (3) the Director adn/or highest ranked officer within the Islamic Affairs Department of Negeri Sembilan, (4) the Chief Syariah Enforcement Officer of Negeri Sembilan, and (5) the Chief Syariah Prosecutor of Negeri Sembilan. 2. ERT is an independent international organisation whose purpose is to combat discrimination and promote equality as a fundamental human right and a basic principle of social justice. Established as a resource centre and a think tank, it focuses on the complex relationship between different types of discrimination, developing strategies for translating the principles of equality into practice and balancing the principle of non-discrimination with other rights. The Board and staff of ERT are qualified experts in human rights law and non-discrimination. ERT has professional expertise on equality and non-discrimination law, and its core work focuses on legal research on issues of discrimination. 3. In this brief, ERT provides arguments on which Kanesalingam may wish to rely in their submissions to the High Court to argue that Section 66 of the Syariah Criminal (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1992 (Section 66) violates Article 8 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia (Article 8) by discriminating against the applicants, and others in a similar situation to the applicants, on the ground of their gender identity.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
    HOUSE OF LORDS Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee 32nd Report of Session 2019–21 Drawn to the special attention of the House: Draft Customs Safety, Security and Economic Operators Registration and Identi ication (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (UK(NI) Indication) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and one related instrument Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 Includes information paragraphs on: 3 instruments relating to COVID-19 Draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Draft Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2020 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Hazardous Substances and Packaging Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Draft Law Enforcement and Security (Separation Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Issues etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Plant Health (Amendment Etc.) (EU Draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Exit) Regulations 2020 and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Draft Environment and Wildlife Regulations 2020 (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Ordered to be printed 27 October 2020 and published 29 October 2020 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords HL Paper 159 Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee The Committee’s terms of reference, as amended on 11 July 2018, are set out on the website but are, broadly: To report on draft instruments and memoranda laid before Parliament under sections 8, 9 and 23(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Pitcairn Islands Supreme Court T 1/2011 In
    IN THE PITCAIRN ISLANDS SUPREME COURT T 1/2011 IN THE MATTER under the Constitution of Pitcairn and the Bill of Rights 1688 AND IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to the vires of parts of the Pitcairn Constitution being ultra vires the Bill of Rights 1688 AND IN THE MATTER OF a constitutional challenge and the refusal of the Magistrates Court to refer a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court and the failure of the Supreme Court to consider an appeal from the Magistrates Court AND CP 1/2013 IN THE MATTER OF a judicial review of the Attorney General and Governor BETWEEN MICHAEL WARREN Applicant/Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 07 to 11 and 14 to 17 April 2014; 01 August 2014; 23 September 2014 Appearances: Kieran Raftery and Simon Mount for the Crown Tony Ellis and Simon Park (on 23 September 2014) for Applicant/Appellant Judgment: 28 November 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT OF HAINES J ______________________________________________________________________ This judgment was delivered by me on 28 November 2014 at 10 am pursuant to the directions of Haines J Deputy Registrar Table of Contents Para Nr Introduction [1] Course of the hearing [11] The application for a stay on the grounds of abuse of process – the self- determination claim The submission [19] The right to self-determination – sources [22] Ius cogens [24] Internal self-determination – treaty obligations of the UK – the Charter of the United Nations [32] Internal self-determination – treaty obligations of the UK –
    [Show full text]
  • Law in a Plural Society: Malaysian Experience Zaki Azmi
    BYU Law Review Volume 2012 | Issue 3 Article 1 9-1-2012 Law in a Plural Society: Malaysian Experience Zaki Azmi Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Human Geography Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Rule of Law Commons Recommended Citation Zaki Azmi, Law in a Plural Society: Malaysian Experience, 2012 BYU L. Rev. 689 (2012). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2012/iss3/1 This Conference Proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 01-AZMI.FIN (DO NOT DELETE) 2/8/2013 2:39 PM Law in a Plural Society: Malaysian Experience Address Given by Former Chief Justice of Malaysia, Zaki Azmi* I. INTRODUCTION This paper concentrates mainly on how Malaysia, a country composed of many races and religions, creates and enforces its laws in order to sustain the peace that has lasted more than half a century. I have recently retired as a judge, so my view on this subject is from a judge’s perspective. Malaysia is located just north of the equator, about halfway around the world from Utah. It is geographically divided into two main regions by the South China Sea. These two regions are the Peninsula Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak. Peninsula Malaysia was known as Malaya, but in 1963, the British colonies
    [Show full text]
  • Journal Malaysian Judiciary
    JOURNAL JOURNAL OFJOURNAL JUDICIARY MALAYSIAN THE OF THE MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY July 2020 January 2019 Barcode ISSN 0127-9270 JOURNAL OF THE MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY July 2020 JOURNAL OF THE MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY MODE OF CITATION Month [Year] JMJ page ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE Publication Secretary, Judicial Appointments Commission Level 5, Palace of Justice, Precinct 3, 62506 Putrajaya www.jac.gov.my Tel: 603-88803546 Fax: 603-88803549 2020 © Judicial Appointments Commission, Level 5, Palace of Justice, Precinct 3, 62506 Putrajaya, Malaysia. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any material form or by any means, including photocopying and recording, or storing in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication, without the written permission of the copyright holder, application for which should be addressed to the publisher. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature. Views expressed by contributors in this Journal are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Malaysian Judiciary, Judicial Appointments Commission or Malaysian Judicial Academy. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the information contained in this work is correct, the publisher, the editor, the contributors and the Academy disclaim all liability and responsibility for any error or omission in this publication, and in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done by any person in reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon the whole or any part of the contents of this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 16-136 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE, Petitioner, v. BCB HOLDINGS LIMITED AND BELIZE BANK LIMITED, Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GUYANA SUPPORTING THE GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI BENJAMIN G. SHATZ Counsel of Record MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 West Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 [email protected] (310) 312-4000 Counsel for Amicus Curiae The Government of Guyana i TABLE OF CONTENTS BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ..........................1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ...................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...........................5 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .................................................7 I. The CCJ Is Vitally Important To The Caribbean Region’s Goals Of Independence And Solidarity .............7 II. The CCJ’s Opinion In This Case Is Of Utmost Importance Because It Addresses Foundational Issues Of Democratic Government .................. 11 CONCLUSION ................................................ 13 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES BCB Holdings Ltd. v. Attorney General of Belize, CCJ Appeal No. CV 7 of 2012 ............... 11–12 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Article V(2)(b) .............................................. 12 1 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE The Government of Guyana submits this brief in support of the Government of Belize’s petition for certiorari.1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The Co-operative Republic of Guyana is a sovereign nation on the northern coast of South America, bordering Venezuela, Brazil, Suriname and the Caribbean Sea. Like Belize, Guyana is intimately tied geographically, culturally, historically, linguistically, and politically to the Caribbean region.2 1 Counsel for the Government of Guyana authored this brief in whole and no other person or entity made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter II the Method of Appointment of Judges to the Superior Courts of Malaysia Under the Federal Constitution and the Judicia
    Chapter II The Method of Appointment of Judges to the Superior Courts of Malaysia Under the Federal Constitution and the Judicial Appointments Commission Despite the fact that the question of performing judicial functions independently by judges comes after their appointment, the method of appointment of judges is the crucial and dominant factor to ensure their substantive independence, the independence which greatly depends upon the independent character, integrity, equanimity, legal knowledge and keen intellect of the persons who would hold the office of judges. For, the appointment of a judge on account of political allegiance in utter disregard to the questions of his qualifications, merit, ability, competency, integrity and earlier performance as an advocate or judicial officer may bring in, to use the words of President Roosevelt, ‘Spineless Judges’ who can hardly be expected to dispense justice independently according to law and their own sense of justice without regard to the wishes and desire of the government of the day. There is a great possibility that such a judge may remain ‘indebted to those responsible for his designation ...., the beneficiary is exposed to the human temptation to repay his debt by a pliable conduct of his office’137 especially when the executive itself is a litigant. As H. J. Laski aptly said, ‘It is not necessary to suggest that there will be conscious unfairness; but it is .... possible that such judges will, particularly in cases where the liberty of the subject is concerned’, find themselves unconsciously biased through over-appreciation of executive difficulty...’138 Therefore, ‘in appointing judges, a government owes a duty to the people ..
    [Show full text]