Why is the Bar concerned about current representation procedures?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Malaysian Bar Expresses Concern Over Current Representation Procedures in Criminal Cases

The Malaysian Bar has voiced significant concerns regarding the existing procedures for handling representations in criminal cases, particularly following public outcry over the death of Indonesian maid Adelina Sao. The Bar argues that the current multi-layered approach, as outlined in Public Prosecutor’s Direction No. 2/2019, is impractical and could compromise fairness and efficiency in legal proceedings. This concern is amplified by instances where high-profile cases have seen proceedings discontinued or withdrawn, suggesting a need for a substantial overhaul of the entire process.
The Case of Adelina Sao Highlights Procedural Issues

The death of Adelina Sao, an Indonesian maid who died of multiple organ failure shortly after being rescued from her employer's home in Penang in February 2018, brought existing representation procedures into sharp public focus. Her employer, S. Ambika, was initially charged with murder. However, the case was later discontinued by the deputy public prosecutor, leading to Ambika being pronounced not guilty. This outcome, coupled with public disquiet, has prompted the Malaysian Bar to scrutinise the avenues available for seeking a review of charges or alternative plea bargains.
New Procedures Involve Multiple High-Ranking Officials

The procedures for considering representations, as detailed in Public Prosecutor’s Direction No. 2/2019, involve a hierarchical review process that includes the Solicitor General III, II, and I. The Malaysian Bar president, Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor, has described this system as "multi-layered" and consequently "time-consuming." This intricate approval process raises questions about its efficiency and its potential to unduly delay justice for all parties involved in a criminal case.
Concurrent Trials and Representations Deemed Impractical

A significant point of contention is the new procedure's stipulation that trials should not be adjourned while representations are being deliberated upon, advocating for both processes to run in parallel. Abdul Fareed argues that this approach is both impractical and unfair, especially for the accused. Mounting a defence incurs substantial financial and emotional costs, and forcing defendants to concurrently prepare for a trial while awaiting the outcome of a representation review places an undue burden on them.
Proposed Alternative: Committee-Based Deliberations

In response to these concerns, the Malaysian Bar has proposed an alternative system for deliberating representations. Specifically for cases involving the death penalty, the Bar suggests the formation of committees comprising high-ranking officials from the Attorney General’s Chambers. For other cases, they propose committees made up of Senior State Deputy Public Prosecutors and senior officers from Putrajaya, or a task force including State Legal Advisors, State Prosecution Directors, and several senior Deputy Public Prosecutors. This streamlined approach is anticipated to be more efficient and less time-consuming, potentially allowing for more reasonable adjournments pending committee review.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why is the Bar concerned about current representation procedures?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends