Once again the Court of Appeal has, PREDICTABLY, ruled in favour of the government and its apparatus. It brushed aside the ruling of the High Court for MACC not to interrogate witness right round the clock; the Appellate Court has just said it’s okay for MACC to do so.
Mind you, none of us were surprised. As Foo Wy Len, a writer to Malaysiakini Vox Populi said [extract]: The same story has repeated once too often. Why bother to have the High Court when even the bookie will never take any bet on the verdict by the Court of Appeal!
The Straits Times reported: Counsel Karpal Singh, who appeared for Tan, argued that the Parliament could not have intended the phrase ’day to day’ to mean round the clock.
“That would be the literal approach which would lead to absurdity and investigations of poor quality.”
He submitted that if Rule 20 of the Lock-Up Rules 1953 had strict application in relation to suspects, it could not be fathomed how witnesses could be questioned after office hours when suspects were beyond reach of interrogation between 6.30pm and 6.30am (the rest time for suspects).
“Witnesses should be entitled to more protection than suspects.”
“It is the reliable evidence of witnesses which ultimately succeeds in the conviction of suspects.”
More Vox Populi comments follow:
Chipmunk: "Day to day" means 'Occurring or done each day'. So Court of Appeal, how do you interpret section 30 (3)(a)? Unless you guys work on rotating shifts or office hours running 24/7, I suggest you stick with what the High Court has ruled. [...]
Multi Racial: Just look back this year. We don't have to look too far. Every case decided by the High Court judges that is not in favour of the government or Umno, is overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Some of them were done so fast with very short notice like the MB vs MB case in Perak. But when it is the other way around and the opposition appeals, it takes months and years, and it will be complete waste of time as the conclusion is already decided.
KayKay: Somebody should compile all the High Court decisions which went against the government and later overturned by the Court of Appeal. In fact, all these Court of Appeal rulings, few were written judgments.
The Mazu case is a good example. This is how they jam the wheels of justice. Without a written judgment from the Court of Appeal, it's not possible to proceed to the Federal Court.