Why did the court decline to rule on the leaked recording application?

Question

Accepted Answer

Court Declines to Rule on Leaked Recording Application Due to Ongoing Police Investigation

The High Court declined to issue a court order concerning the leak of a recording from Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s trial because the matter is currently under police investigation. Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali stated that the court should refrain from prejudging the issue, as it would be inappropriate for the court to make a determination on contempt of court while the police are actively investigating. The judge also reminded both the prosecution and defence that any video recordings or court recording transcripts (CRT) of proceedings are strictly prohibited from being uploaded to public mediums or shared.
Police Investigation Mandates Judicial Restraint

Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali articulated that the court's role was not to preempt the findings of the ongoing police investigation into the leaked recording. By virtue of a police report having been lodged, the judge indicated that the court should allow the investigative process to conclude without judicial interference. This stance signifies a deference to the established investigative procedures, preventing the court from making premature judgments on the matter.
Court's Inability to Determine Contempt of Court

The presiding judge explicitly stated that it was outside the court's purview to definitively rule whether the leak constituted contempt of court. This determination, he explained, falls within the scope of the police investigation. Therefore, the court deferred any judgment on the nature of the offence itself, awaiting the outcome of the external inquiry.
Prohibition on Dissemination of Court Recordings

In addition to declining the application, Justice Mohd Nazlan reiterated a standing directive that all video recordings of court proceedings, including the court recording transcript (CRT), are forbidden from being uploaded to any public platform or shared. This rule applies to all parties involved, including the prosecution and defence, who are considered officers of the court and are expected to adhere to this directive. The CRT is provided solely for transcription purposes and not for public dissemination.
Prosecution's Application and Defence's Counterargument

The prosecution had sought a court order to prevent third parties from uploading the CRT without explicit permission, highlighting that the undertaking signed upon receiving the CRT expressly forbids forwarding copies or uploading them. However, Najib's lawyer, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, argued that the prosecution had previously objected to the defence's request for a gag order, suggesting that the issue could have been addressed earlier. Shafee also drew a comparison to practices in the United Kingdom, where dissemination of court proceeding recordings is reportedly common.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why did the court decline to rule on the leaked recording application?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends