Shafee conducts his "proceedings" outside the Court.

I do not follow the 1MDB trial in great detail. 

It just reminds me that we are Third World stupid. 

Granted people steal money even in the 'First' world but 

• Who writes personal cheques that leave a trail wider than the Pahang River? 
  
• And which idiot says he did not know RM2.6 billion somehow mysteriously appeared in his personal account? 
  
• And then he promptly started spending the money?

Anyway I believe the Prosecution has wrapped up its 1MDB case. The prosecution phase is over. 

Then both sides ie the Prosecution and the Defense give their summing up arguments over what the Prosecution has presented thus far. 

Which I think has been done also.

Now the judge will spend some time to study the Prosecution's case that has been presented, plus the Defense's counter arguments.

Then the judge will make a decision (about one month from now ie in late October) whether the case should be dismissed or ask Najib to defend himself.  

Meantime Najib's defence counsel Shafee Abdullah has been making statements to the Media. Here is a video clip from The Star :


https://www.thestartv.com/v/shafee-on-1-mdb-trial-what-the-press-had-reported-so-far-might-not-be-admissible-evidence

Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who represents former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in his 1MDB corruption trial, told reporters on Wednesday that what they had reported so far throughout the 13 days of the trial might not be admissible evidence as the judge had been merely listening to the witnesses' statements and examination-in-chief.

Or you can read more at The Star here.

Ok here are my thoughts about Shafee conducting his "proceedings" outside the Court, especially to the Media.

First of all I looked up the word 'subjudice'. Here is the Wikipedia :

In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment", means that a particular case or matter is under trial or being considered by a judge or court. The term may be used synonymously with "the present case" or "the case at bar" by some lawyers. 

In England and Wales, Ireland,[1] New Zealand,[2][3][4] Australia, South Africa, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Canada,[5] Sri Lanka, and Israel it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. 

This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process. 

In the United States, there are First Amendment concerns about stifling the right of free speech which prevent such tight restrictions on comments sub judice. 

However, State Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys often place restrictions on the out-of-court statements an attorney may make regarding an ongoing case.

Prior to 1981 in English law the term was correctly used to describe material which would prejudice court proceedings by publication. Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because of the introduction of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. 

Under Section 2 of the Act, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there is an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons. 

So in the US, while the Press is free to report on ongoing Court cases, the attorneys (the lawyers) who are involved in Court cases are often restricted from making public statements about their clients and their cases.

• To me this sounds right and also fair. 
• First the Press must be given the freedom to report what they see fit to report about ongoing Court cases. Their duty is to keep the public informed.
• The lawyers (both prosecution and defense) on the other hand should not speak to the Press about their ongoing cases. 
• Or even AFTER the cases are settled. 
  

In the video above clearly Shafee is holding "court" with the Press to defend his client's case. And this is being done outside the Court.

Surely the Judge in this case reads the newspapers or listens to the news. I am wondering why the judge has not advised Shafee to observe professionalism at all times. 

We do not hear the Prosecution speaking to the Press about how they are prosecuting this 1MDB case. 

Ok lets see what Shafee has said in the video above. Shafee says that what the Press has been reporting about the 1MDB case has not been ruled upon by the judge yet. Meaning the judge can possibly rule some or all the evidence as 'inadmissible'.

Hence (Shafee says) the Press is reporting  about 'evidence' which may turn out to be inadmissible. 

Alamak brother Shafee  - and Monday comes after Sunday. Tuesday comes after Monday. Isnt that obvious?  That is the job of the Press. To report. Whether the evidence is admissible, whether the accused is innocent or guilty - that is the job of the Courts. The Press merely reports what transpires in Court. Including your statements to the Press OUTSIDE the Court. 

This is a very shallow way of playing to the gallery - to salvage his client's image.  

Najib is still a politician and politicians are extremely motivated to salvage their public image.  But there are other much better methods for Najib to salvage his image. Obviously Shafee is not the person who knows anything about that. 

Well the fact is the Prosecution's evidence has already been presented in Court. 

The Prosecution has even wound up its case.

So how does Shafee explain that?

So far the judge did not disallow the Prosecution from presenting the evidence. 

The evidence has already been admitted in the trial.  Oops. Too late. 

So Shafee is off when he says we do not yet know if the evidence is admissible.

What we do not know yet is how the judge will rule on the  Prosecution's case.  

The judge has not made his decision yet (aka his judgement).  

Even with all the admissible evidence a judge can still acquit the accused. 

Or find him guilty.  

This is how ALL criminal trials are conducted.  

Not just this 1MDB trial.

And it is the duty of the Press to report what they hear in Court. 

The Press does not know how the judge will rule.  

What if after all that reporting by the Press, the judge acquits an accused person? Does the Press have to delete all their prior reporting and issue apologies? 

Lets not be ridiculous ok.

For example that fellow in Terengganu who has been arrested under the charge of raping his 12 year old daughter until she became pregnant. 

Well, 

i.   that fellow will be charged in Court (already done so)

ii.  the evidence against him must be admissible in Court

iii. whether he will be found guilty or not?

So in the meantime, what should the Press do? 

Do not report on this rape case until the Court has passed its final judgement?

If that is what is desired of the Press, then the Press need not report crime at all.

The Press can just go to the websites of the Courts and copy paste Court judgements on cases which have been decided upon.   Because doing otherwise will be deemed as fake news.

So wont that be fantastic news for the thieves, rapists, murderers and all other criminals.