MGG Pillai Commentary View

<< Previous || Next >>

A High Court Judge Throws A Tantrum

One high court judges known for his voluminous judgements, often on the most inconsequential of matters, was irritably upset recently when neither counsel appearing before him had not heard of an unreported judgement of his. He had made his views known then, and upbraided the counsel for not referring to it. Horror of horrors, neither had heard of his landmark decision of the law. Nor had the law reports, which bend over backwards to report the most mundane court cases. One counsel had referred to another, though reported, judgement which contradicted the judge's. Horror of horrors, even in the reported case, the counsel had not heard of His Lordship's decision. Counsel present in court, even in these parlous times when they can go to prison for contempt for not pandering to the judge's self-imposed dignity, could not contain their laughter, suitably suppressed with handkerchiefs over their mouths. That in the Malaysian system of justice is even worse than shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre. But the judge's threat to "deal" with the two counsel who did not refer to his unreported judgement in the earlier case is dismissed, rightly, as the obiter dictum of a self-important but presumed legal mind.

Lawyers, when arguing their cases, take exceptional care to refer to cases decided upon by the judge hearing them. That is insurance against one who feels slighted when other more prominent decisions question his own integrity. But is rare for a judge to blow off his handle because one of his judgements were not referred. There is the underlying understanding that this is done so as not to annoy the judge unnecessarily. After all, what he wants is victory for his client, which he does not want to jeopardise by factors other than the soundness of the case he argues. Today, he must ensure that this does not bring him in contempt in a system a new legal principle is busily fashioned: a lawyer must not put forward a case for his client which would question the integrity of the judges appearing before him. Unless he is a Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who can, and has, with impunity, accused the chief justice of corruption and worse. The chief justice, who has acquired a particularly thick skin these days, did not see how these accusations by a petitioner that he could be biased would make him biased.

It is not important these days for justice to be done or seen to be done. It is more important that justice be respected by not pointing out the corruption of the judiciary. The book is thrown at lawyers who the chief justice and his cohorts believe are against them. So, one lawyer can deliberately mislead the court in a matter and nothing happens to him. He is, after all, the holiday companion of the chief justice and the attorney-general, and his client, an internationally known business man of unquestionable repute. But the Bar Council chairman must be made to account for why the Bar should dare discuss matters affecting its members. It does suggest that it makes sense for a lawyer to know the judge than the law when appearing in Malaysian courts. People these days come to court not to ensure justice, but to be told that justice comes only to those who chose the right lawyers, do not cause contempt by producing evidence the bench cannot accept, and quote the judge's decisions, even if unreported.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my