Late judgments a denial of justice, say lawyers

PETALING JAYA: Court judgments must be delivered quickly as they not only assist litigants in the appeal process but also provide a precedent to lower courts, lawyers said.

They said it should also be a practice for judges to write their grounds as soon as possible when the facts of the case are still fresh in their minds.

The lawyers, however, admit some judges were unable to provide written grounds at a reasonable time because they were overburdened with cases.

Syed Iskandar says it is paramount for judges to provide their written grounds expeditiously as the parties who have lost their cases would want to know the reasons.

Lawyer Syed Iskandar Syed Jaafar al-Mahdzar said it was paramount for judges to provide their written grounds expeditiously as the parties who had lost their cases would want to know the reasons.

“In capital punishment cases, like murder and dadah trafficking, judgments are needed to file appeals. But in other cases, litigants might not appeal if the judgment is sound,” he said.

Syed Iskandar said this in response to a Court of Appeal (COA) bench which has yet to provide its written judgment to Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng in a defamation case against five litigants, including two publishers.

The COA only provided its oral grounds on Dec 21, 2016, but Lim needed the judgment as he had filed an appeal in the Federal Court.

A 2002 circular by the then chief justice gave judges eight weeks to complete their judgments once aggrieved parties have filed a notice of appeal.

Kengadharan: Public interest judgments serve as binding precedents to lower courts.

Lawyer R Kengadharan said public interest judgments, especially from the Federal Court and COA, served as binding precedents to lower courts.

“So it is wise that both these courts make available judgments as soon as possible as these serve as guidance to the High Court and subordinate courts,” he said.

Kengadharan said these days, judges were overwhelmed with trials and appeals as society had become more complex and the public were aware of their rights.

“Judges are working hard to dispose of hearings and appeals but there cannot be inordinate delays in delivering judgments as it will be prejudicial to the interests of the litigants,” he said.

He said the freedom of accused persons appealing against convictions for murder and dadah trafficking was at stake since they could not get out on bail.

“Appeals cannot be heard if there is no written judgment. The appellants will not be compensated if their convictions are set aside on appeal,” he said.

Similarly, he said litigants in civil suits would have to pay higher compensation when damages are attached with interest payments.

“The longer disposal of cases as a result of delay in providing judgments will result in the defendants paying more,” he said.

Ramkarpal says delay in providing judgments was not a major issue especially if they involve death penalty cases.

Lawyer Ramkarpal Singh said the delay in providing judgments was not a major issue with trial judges now, especially if they involved death penalty cases.

“Judges may not be able to provide their grounds for appeal purposes within the eight-week deadline but it will seldom be a delay of up to a year,” he added.

However, he said the quality of judgments delivered had suffered as trial judges were overburdened with work as they had too many cases to handle.

“Even then, there are some delivering good judgments although there is room for improvement,” said Ramkarpal, who is also an MP.

He said a sub-standard judgment itself could be grounds for appeal as the trial judge would have not considered the important aspects of the case in making a decision.

Ramkarpal said it was better for judges, especially in the trial courts, to deliver their grounds after hearing the cases as the facts were still fresh on their minds and they had the benefit to assess the demeanour of witnesses. -Mkini