How does the Court of Appeal justify upholding the stay on damages for the families?

Question

Accepted Answer

Court of Appeal Upholds Stay on Damages for Families of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat

The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's decision to grant a stay on the execution of damages awarded to the families of pastor Raymond Koh and activist Amri Che Mat. This stay is in effect pending the government's appeals against the original judgments. The appellate court found that the High Court judge had correctly applied legal principles when granting the stay, and that the decision was a rational exercise of discretion to maintain the status quo until the substantive appeals are fully determined.
Rational Exercise of Discretion to Preserve Status Quo

Justice Alwi, delivering the judgment, stated that the High Court judge's decision to grant a stay was a rational exercise of discretion. This action was deemed necessary to preserve the status quo pending the final resolution of all issues in the government's substantive appeals. The court emphasised that an appellate body should only intervene if the lower court's decision is demonstrably wrong, which was not the case here.
Stay of Execution Does Not Negate Consent Order or Liability

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the appointment of Amanah Raya Berhad as trustee prevented the government from seeking a stay. The court clarified that a stay merely suspends the enforcement of an order and does not disturb a consent order or constitute an admission of liability. It was explained that the consent order was a procedural step, not an abandonment of the right to seek a stay or an admission of fault.
Practical Difficulties and Preservation of Appeals

In Raymond Koh's case, the High Court's judgment included a continuing daily payment of RM10,000, making immediate execution impractical due to the recurring disbursement of public funds. Furthermore, the court noted that in both Koh's and Amri's cases, the stay related to conditions of police investigations, and refusing the stay would render the government's main appeals nugatory. The court underscored that its concern was not with the merits of the case at this stage, but solely with whether special circumstances justified granting the stay.
Temporary Delay, Not Jeopardy to Justice

The Court of Appeal concluded that granting the stay would not jeopardise the plaintiffs' pursuit of justice. Instead, it would only temporarily delay the enforcement of the judgment while the appellate process unfolds. This approach ensures that the integrity of the appellate process is maintained, allowing for a thorough review of the substantive appeals without premature execution of the damages awards.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How does the Court of Appeal justify upholding the stay on damages for the families?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends