Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©New Straits Times (Used by permission)

• Prosecutors rapped again

PUTRAJAYA: Court of Appeal judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram has suggested that the Bar Council assign lawyers to plead on behalf of appellants in criminal cases. This was because appellants who were unrepresented could not express themselves well.

"We could stand down for lawyers to interview the appellants before they put forward mitigating circumstances for our consideration."

Sri Ram had observed that appellants who were serving sentences appeared in court without counsel. They had filed their appeals with the help of the Prisons Department.

All those convicted had cases that originated from the Sessions Court and the appellate court was the final court of appeal.

In response, Bar Council vice-chairman Ragunath Kesavan said the council was unable to send lawyers to plead on behalf of those appealing.

He said its legal aid bureau was run by volunteers with limited resources and could not place lawyers in courts.

"Those who are entitled for assistance must qualify under a set criteria."

He added that the bureau would consider representing an appellant should prison authorities enlist the Bar's assistance.

Legal Aid Bureau director-general Dr Hassan Ab Rahman said the government agency only provided counsel to plead before the trial court imposed sentence.

"We cannot venture beyond that until and unless the laws are amended."

Prosecutors rapped again

by V. Anbalagan

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal took the prosecution to task for failing to appeal to enhance the sentences of persons convicted of criminal offences .

Judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram said he found it appalling that the prosecution could not lodge appeals within the stipulated 10-day period once a matter had been disposed of by a High Court.

"You are a clog in the criminal justice system. We expect the prosecution to facilitate the court, which is sadly not the case."

Sri Ram expressed his disappointment that several deputy public prosecutors in court yesterday were unable to say why appeals were not lodged in time.

Judge Datuk Wira Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff, who was a solicitor-general in the Attorney-General's Chambers prior to his elevation to the Bench, said the prosecution now appeared to be bogged down by bureaucratic red tape.

"The senior deputy public prosecutors in the states are equivalent to an assistant public prosecutor. An appeal should be lodged immediately if the sentence imposed is inadequate," he said.

Both judges made these remarks when the Court of Appeal discovered that an unemployed man with 11 previous convictions had had his jail term reduced on appeal by a High Court in Johor.

K.Sugumaran, 47, was sentenced to 10 years' jail and six strokes of the rotan by the Sessions Court after he pleaded guilty to causing grievous hurt to his victim during a robbery in Kluang on Aug 15, 2005.

Sugumaran appealed, and the High Court reduced the jail term to seven years but maintained the number of strokes.

Not satisfied with the reduction, Sugumaran appealed to the Court of Appeal but the prosecution did not cross-appeal.

Sri Ram, Mohd Ghazali and judge Tengku Baharudin Shah Tengku Mahmud, however, unanimously dismissed the appeal and went on to restore the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.

Later, a deputy public prosecutor, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the appeals could not be made on time because files needed to be referred to the Attorney-General's Chambers here.

In another appeal, the court increased the number of the strokes for a security guard who committed incest with his then 9-year-old sister in their house in Seberang Perai on May 10, 2003.

The Sessions Court found the guard guilty, sentenced him to 10 years' jail and two strokes of the rotan.

On appeal by the prosecution, the High Court enhanced the jail term to 18 years but maintained the two strokes.

The Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed the man's appeal and instead increased the number of the strokes to eight.

Sri Ram said this was an "aggravated rape" by a brother 20 years older than the girl.

"He was supposed to be the girl's guardian as their parents had passed away but, instead, he became her violator."

Sri Ram said he was amazed by the prosecution's failure to cross-appeal regarding the corporal punishment and, as a result of this, the court had to intervene to enhance the sentence.

"This is a rare case for us to intervene in. We would have failed to do justice to society if the miscarriage of justice is not corrected," he said.

On Monday, Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Zaki Azmi also criticised the prosecution for its failure to alert his registry to fix early dates to hear appeals to prevent sexual offenders evade caning.

Offenders are exempt from caning if they are 50 years of age by the time their appeals are exhausted.

However, following an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code, which came into effect on Sept 7 last year, caning is mandatory regardless of the age of the sexual offender.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed