Johor bicycle tragedy: Ex-Bar chief wants reform for automatic appeal

Johor bicycle tragedy: Ex-Bar chief wants reform for automatic appeal


Clerk Sam Ke Ting currently does not have an automatic right to appeal but instead needed to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

As a result, former Bar Council president Salim Bashir today has called for the government to reform the law to allow such automatic appeal right in fatal reckless driving cases.

His call came on the heels of the Johor Bahru High Court yesterday convicting and sentencing Sam to six years in jail and an RM6,000 fine for reckless driving that caused the death of eight teen cyclists in 2017.

While awaiting the outcome of her leave to appeal application before the Appellate Court, Sam was forced to remain behind bars as the High Court denied her application for a temporary stay of the sentence.

Sam Ke Ting

As the reckless driving case initially originated at the Magistrate’s Court rather than the Sessions Court, she first needed to obtain leave from the Court of Appeal before she could proceed with the appeal properly.

Speaking to Malaysiakini, Salim said that legal reform is necessary as cases like Sam’s - which originated from the Magistrate’s Court - have led to courts generally deciding not to allow an interim stay of sentencing.

“Generally an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution of sentences except whipping.

“Although there are no clear prohibitions to grant a stay of execution on sentences in any cases that require leave to appeal, the judicial discretion is generally not to allow it, weighing on the reasons that leave to appeal is required and therefore an appeal is not explicitly certain.

“I am of the view that the leave requirements need to be abolished for all cases that involve imprisonment sentencing. At the moment, the prosecution is not required to file leave to appeal against acquittal on matters under the magistrate’s jurisdiction, unlike persons who are convicted.

“Therefore, it is incumbent for the government to review the need for leave in all cases that originated from the Magistrate’s Courts.

“Alternatively, I agree with the proposal to amend the law to fit in certain cases that carry mandatory imprisonment within the jurisdiction of Sessions Courts to circumvent the need to obtain leave before filing an appeal,” Salim said.

Similar cases should be heard at Sessions Court

Also speaking to Malaysiakini, lawyer KA Ramu did not mince words when questioning the government and lawmakers on why the current law still empowers Magistrate’s Courts to hear reckless driving cases that involve death.

The counsel, who represented many clients in past traffic cases, said that legal reform must be initiated so that future cases do not face the kind of hurdles now before Sam.

He questioned why a serious case such as reckless driving involving fatality is by law required to be heard by the Magistrate’s Court.

In Malaysia, Magistrate’s Courts generally do not hear cases involving death.

Ramu opined that reckless driving cases involving fatality must be heard at the Sessions Court.

“If one party loses, can appeal to the High Court. Again, if one party loses again (at High Court), there’s the (automatic) right to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal

“Here, the accused (Sam) for only one appeal she has the right (appeal from Magistrate’s Court to High Court).

“To appeal to the Court of Appeal now is only on a point of law and you need to get leave from the Court of Appeal.

“If the matter started at the Sessions Court, she would get two rights of appeal, and the last right of appeal is before the Court of Appeal with three judges.

“What a sad thing she lost the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal,” Ramu said.

The lawyer also with the greatest of respect questioned what the teenage boys were doing riding bicycles in the early morning hours prior to the tragic incident.

“The deceased children’s parents should be charged under the Child Act for not taking care of the children,” Ramu said.