What requirements under Section 18(1) did Laidlaw allegedly fail to meet?

Question

Accepted Answer

Laidlaw Failed to Meet Specific Requirements for Practicing in Malaysia for Najib's Appeal

Jonathan Laidlaw allegedly failed to meet the requirements under Section 18(1) of the Legal Profession Act to be permitted to practice in Malaysia for the final SRC International Sdn Bhd appeal of Datuk Seri Najib Razak. The prosecution contends that Laidlaw did not demonstrate special qualifications or experience that are unavailable among local lawyers for this particular case. Furthermore, the prosecution argued that Laidlaw lacks experience in conducting criminal trials or appeals under Malaysian law and is not sufficiently versed in the local legal system relevant to the Federal Court appeal.
Lack of Demonstrable Special Qualifications or Experience

The prosecution's affidavit, filed by deputy public prosecutor Mohd Ashrof Adrin Kamarul, asserts that Laidlaw did not prove he possesses special qualifications or experience not already available among Malaysian lawyers. Specifically, the application to practice in Malaysia for this case was based on Laidlaw's claim of having expertise not found locally. However, the prosecution countered that the issues in Najib's SRC case are not considered exceptionally complex, and local legal practitioners, including Najib's long-standing lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, are well-equipped to handle them.
Insufficient Familiarity with Malaysian Law and Legal System

A key argument presented by the prosecution is Laidlaw's lack of experience with Malaysian laws and the Malaysian legal system. Ashrof's affidavit highlighted that Laidlaw's experience conducting cases outside Malaysia does not equate to the specific qualifications needed to argue appeals under domestic laws. The prosecution emphasized that Laidlaw has no experience in arguing charges before Malaysian courts, which are based on local statutes.
Absence of Superior Knowledge Compared to Local Counsel

The prosecution further argued that Laidlaw does not possess knowledge superior to that of senior local criminal lawyers. It was highlighted that Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah regularly appears before all tiers of Malaysian courts, arguing cases similar to those faced by Najib. The prosecution found it difficult to comprehend how a foreign lawyer, described as a "stranger to domestic law," could be considered more equipped than experienced Malaysian counsel.
Unsubstantiated Claim of Local Lawyer Deficiency

The prosecution challenged Laidlaw's contention that no local lawyers possess the necessary special qualifications or experience to defend Najib. It was pointed out that Malaysia has a substantial number of lawyers, 21,625 in total, and it is improbable that none possess the required expertise. The prosecution cited a list of 168 decided cases at all court levels involving similar offences, demonstrating the availability of local expertise in criminal breach of trust, abuse of power, and money laundering.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What requirements under Section 18(1) did Laidlaw allegedly fail to meet?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends