Why did the court choose to postpone rather than proceed without the ill judge?

Question

Accepted Answer

Federal Court Adjourns Syed Saddiq Graft Appeal Decision Due to Judge's Illness

The Federal Court has postponed its decision on the prosecution's appeal against the acquittal of Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman in his graft case. The adjournment, now set for July 13, occurred because one of the three-judge panel, Justice Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali, was unwell and unable to attend. Despite rules allowing judgments to be delivered in a judge's absence, the court exercised its discretion to postpone, indicating a preference for the full panel to be present for this pronouncement.
Judicial Discretion in Adjournment

The decision to adjourn the delivery of the judgment, rather than proceeding under Rule 63 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995, highlights the broad discretion vested in the judiciary. Rule 63 permits judgments to be pronounced even if one or more judges who heard the case are absent, with their judgment potentially read by another judge or the Registrar. However, the Federal Court's majority decision in Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor \[2023] affirmed that "the court has absolute discretion" on matters of adjournment. This principle underscores that while procedural rules exist, the court retains the authority to determine the most appropriate course of action based on the specific circumstances.
Prioritising Full Panel Deliberation

The absence of Justice Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali led Court of Appeal president Justice Abu Bakar Jais to announce the postponement, stating it would not be "right to deliver the decision without one member of the panel." This suggests a judicial inclination towards ensuring that all members who participated in the hearing are present for the final pronouncement of a decision, particularly in significant appeals. While not legally mandated by Rule 63 for this specific scenario, the court's choice indicates a procedural preference for the complete deliberative body to be involved in the judgment's delivery, maintaining the integrity and perceived completeness of the judicial process.
Legal Interpretation and Procedural Flexibility

The situation illustrates the interplay between established rules and judicial interpretation in practice. Rule 63 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 provides a mechanism to avoid undue delays when a judge is unavailable. However, the court's decision to adjourn demonstrates that this rule is not automatically invoked when a judge is ill. The court's absolute discretion, as established in precedent, allows for flexibility in managing court proceedings. This discretion can be exercised to accommodate unforeseen circumstances, such as illness, by prioritising the court's internal procedural preferences over strict adherence to provisions for absent judges, especially when the full judicial panel's presence is deemed essential for the judgment.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why did the court choose to postpone rather than proceed without the ill judge?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends