How does Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995 apply to this case?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Federal Court found no basis under Rule 137 to reopen Tan Sri Isa Samad’s conviction
The Federal Court dismissed Tan Sri Isa Samad’s application to review its earlier ruling under Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995 because it held that there was no miscarriage of justice that warranted intervention. The court also said Isa failed to show exceptional circumstances that would justify exercising its review jurisdiction under that rule. As a result, the earlier decision upholding his conviction and sentence remained in place.
The review jurisdiction under Rule 137 was not triggered by the facts presented
Rule 137 relates to the Federal Court’s review jurisdiction, which is used to examine whether intervention is justified in exceptional situations. In this case, a three-member bench chaired by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Azizah Nawawi ruled that Isa’s application did not meet the threshold for such review. The court specifically found no miscarriage of justice that would warrant its intervention under Rule 137.
The court required “exceptional circumstances” and found Isa did not meet that standard
Azizah said Isa did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify the court’s exercise of review jurisdiction under Rule 137. This meant the application did not satisfy the criteria needed for the Federal Court to order a review and a rehearing. The bench therefore dismissed both the bid to review the earlier decision and the request to order a rehearing of his appeal.
The bench also noted Isa was not denied a chance to argue his case
In rejecting the application, the judge added that Isa had not been denied the opportunity to present arguments in his defence or mitigation before the appellate panel reserved its decision. The bench comprised Azizah, Justices Collin Lawrence Sequerah, and P Ravinthran. This point supported the court’s view that the review jurisdiction under Rule 137 was not warranted on procedural grounds.
The dismissal left the conviction and sentence intact after the Federal Court reinstated them
The underlying case involved nine corruption charges linked to Felda’s purchase of a hotel in Kuching, involving RM3.09 million in kickbacks, with a 2021 High Court conviction. The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and sentence in 2023, but the Federal Court reinstated the conviction and sentence on February 10 this year, ordering Isa to begin serving his jail term immediately. After today’s dismissal of the Rule 137 review bid, Isa’s remaining avenue of relief was described as a royal pardon from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, given the offences were committed in Kuala Lumpur.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How does Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995 apply to this case?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends