THOSE with inquisitive minds wonder if there should be unanimity in decisions on appeal cases in the courts. Is unanimity essential?
Karpal appealed at the Court of Appeal. On November 10, 2014, the court, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the conviction, but reduced the fine to RM1, 800. According to Section 3 of CJA, “decision” means “judgment, sentence or order”. So, reading it the other way around, “judgment” means “decision”. Therefore, if we substitute the word “judgment” for the word “decision” in Section 62, the section would read as follows:
The US Supreme Court arrives at unanimity in many instances. Observers and writers suggest this is the result of comity.– There is a like provision in respect of the Federal Court. Section 94 requires the judgment of the Federal Court in criminal appeals to be unanimous unless the chief justice determines that separate judgments should be delivered.
The courts in Singapore adopted the same rationale, as can be gleaned from the decision of its Court of Appeal in Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor 4 SLR 791 . The same is true of Uganda. See the judgment of its Supreme Court in Komakech Geoffrey & Ors v Rose Okullo at page 7. As matters stand, the allegations that a top judge actively interfered in the Karpal verdict remain just a statement. Proof and meat must be put on the table. And, the law expressly requires members of the Court of Appeal bench to consult the president in the event of a split decision. The public should remain abreast of this technicality in the law rather than be easily awed or swept away by allegations of interference.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: malaysiakini - 🏆 20. / 51 Read more »
Source: msianinsight - 🏆 8. / 63 Read more »
Source: msianinsight - 🏆 8. / 63 Read more »
Source: msianinsight - 🏆 8. / 63 Read more »
Source: msianinsight - 🏆 8. / 63 Read more »