A day of judicial discretions exercised wisely


THE Federal Court unanimously dismissed Najib Razak’s bid to adduce additional evidence in his final appeal against being convicted of misappropriating funds from SRC International Sdn Bhd.

The five-judge panel led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat ruled that Najib’s application lacked merit as the evidence his defence team claimed to be fresh had no relevance to the former prime minister’s knowledge of the RM42 million, which is the main issue in the SRC International case. 

In all honesty, the decision is not unexpected. The law on the matter is settled. It is entirely at the discretion of the appellate court.

A judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously. This simply means that the discretion must be exercised based on established legal principles.

The principles have been summarised in the judgement of Lord Parker CJ in the English case of R v Parks [1961]:

(i)    the evidence sought to be called must be evidence that was not available at the trial;

(ii)    the evidence must be relevant to the issues;


Telegram游戏群www.tel8.vip)是一个Telegram群组分享平台。Telegram游戏群包括Telegram群成员导出、telegram群组索引、Telegram群组导航、新加坡telegram群组、telegram中文群组、telegram群组(其他)、Telegram 美国 群组、telegram群组爬虫、电报群 科学上网、小飞机 怎么 加 群、tg群等内容。Telegram游戏群为广大电报用户提供各种电报群组/电报频道/电报机器人导航服务。


(iii)   it must be credible evidence in the sense of being capable of belief; and

(iv)   the Court will, after considering the evidence, go on to consider whether there might have been reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the guilt of the appellant if that evidence had been given together with other evidence at the trial. 

The four conditions or requirements above are cumulative. Based on the Federal Court ruling as reported, Najib had failed the relevancy requirement.

The Federal Court had also unanimously dismissed the request by Najib’s legal team to postpone the hearing of his appeal.

In exercising discretion to refuse or grant an adjournment, the court is entitled to consider the effect of an adjournment on court resources and the competing claims by litigants in other cases awaiting hearing, as well as the interests of the parties.

It has long been recognised by the courts that the resolution of disputes serves the public as a whole, not merely the parties to the proceedings. Adjournments delay final adjudication of cases. Costs are incurred. Therefore, further delays and costs are undesirable.

As the Chief Justice puts it succinctly, justice delayed in the SRC International case is also justice denied to other accused persons. – August 16, 2022.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.


  • 评论列表: