Lawyers question bias in shoe-throwing imam’s jail term

UPDATED @ 08:27:08 PM 10-03-2012

By Clara Chooi

March 10, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, March 10 — Lawyers questioned today if it had been appropriate for the three Federal Court judges who cited imam Hoslan Hussin for contempt of court to preside over the proceedings and punish him for the offence.

At the Bar Council’s annual general meeting (AGM) here this afternoon, several raised the question of bias in the matter, pointing to the lengthy one-year jail sentence meted out by the judges’ panel.

Council president Lim Chee Wee told reporters after the AGM that Bar members had been “unanimous” when expressing discontent over the punishment, which he described as “harsh”.

“Quite a number (of lawyers raised the issue)... A few articulated it. But from the mood, it was a unanimous view — members shared that one year was really harsh,” Lim said.

“The members also questioned whether it was appropriate for the same panel of the Federal Court, which heard the application for leave to appeal (a separate matter), during which the act of contempt occurred... and then going on to cite him (the imam) for contempt and then (sentencing him) for contempt,” he added.

Lim noted that years ago, the Bar had looked into law reforms on matters pertaining to contempt of court and had recommended that in such situations, a judge who is not subject to the act of contempt should hear the contempt proceedings.

Hoslan flung his shoes at the Federal Court Bench on February 22 after it struck out his bid to challenge an eviction order from a city mosque here in 1999 on a technicality.

He stunned the judges, lawyers and members of the public who packed a courtroom at the Federal Court when he stood up, took off both his shoes and lobbed the pair right at the Bench.

The same three-man Bench, led by Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, decided on Thursday after “analysing your explanation” that it was inadequate and found Hoslan in contempt.

Adding to the question of possible bias in the sentence, Lim said it is “rather unusual” for the court to cite an individual for contempt a few weeks after the offence was committed.

He said such an offence should be dealt with immediately if the court had the intention to pursue the matter.

“It is rather unusual... particularly when the court, in the first instance when the act happened, did not cite him for contempt,” he said.

Despite this, Lim stressed that the imam’s conduct was reprehensible and should not be condoned.

“However, the Bar is of the view that there are circumstances warranting compassion... The one year (jail term) is, in our view, too harsh,” he said.