Judge can't rule on court video leak due to police probe

NAJIB TRIAL | High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali was today unable to rule whether the recent uploading of a Court Recording and Transcript (CRT) system video clip onto social media was in contempt of court.

Justice Nazlan, who is presiding over the corruption trial of Najib Abdul Razak, said since the incident was subject to police investigations, the court could not prejudge the matter.

However, he issued a "general reminder" that any form of recording of court proceedings, apart from the CRT, was not permitted and warned both parties that the court would no longer provide CRT to both of them if this rule was violated.

This includes the uploading and sharing of CRT video clips onto social media.

"The court is to assist the prosecution and defence for transcription (purposes by supplying the CRT videos).

"This is done with a written undertaking that the CRT is to be used only for that purpose, not for uploading," said the judge.

Justice Nazlan also warned members of the public not to make prejudicial comments on the ongoing trial, including analyses of the evidence, which could be detrimental to court proceedings.

 Nazlan was ruling on an application made by the prosecution seeking the court's direction on the use of CRT video clips and an order preventing anyone from uploading the video clip into the public domain without express permission from the court. 

Last week, one of Najib's former officers, Isham Jalil, had uploaded a video clip onto Facebook showing defence counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah cross-examining two witnesses.

The video clip was accompanied by an essay in which Isham criticised the prosecution.

This was met with a flurry of condemnations from legal experts who pointed out that the paperwork to obtain the CRT video clearly states that the contents cannot be shared beyond those who had authority.

During the Najib administration, Isham, trained at Harvard and Wharton, served as the prime minister's special officer and as an economist with the EPU.

Prior to Justice Nazlan's ruling, Shafee had submitted that under Section 5 and Section 15 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964, all trials are meant to be in the open.

 "Open trial is justice and part of fair trial and proceedings. What harm has it caused anybody except the purported registrar’s direction? I wonder if it has any legal sanction (attached) to it?" Shafee said.

He also cited the televised trial of former US athlete OJ Simpson and former South African athlete Oscar Pistorius to support his argument. Both Simpson and Pistorius were acquitted of murder.

"So why not (televise to) the whole of Malaysia? This is part of open justice," he said.

Defence co-counsel Harvinderjit Singh submitted that the video clip was essential for clarity, citing an example of how the press had misquoted what he said in court.

Deputy public prosecutor V Sithambaram submitted the defence arguments were invalid because Malaysia did not have laws to facilitate live broadcasts.

"In fact, we cannot even take a photo of the accused in court.

"If now they say (they) can upload (CRT clips), a lot of mischief could happen. We don't want a circus to take place. We must safeguard the proceedings." - Mkini