Kuala Lumpur based lawyer M Visvanathan has expressed surprise over the court's move to air proceedings publicly, saying there has not been any discussion of a proposal to embark on the matter.
Visvanathan said the judiciary has not been in favour of televised court proceedings in the past.
"Even when one is in court, one is constantly reminded of the prohibition against taking photos or making video or audio recordings," Visvanathan said in a statement.
"In fact, even recordings made by the Courts Recording Transcription (CRT) system have not always been given to the litigants’ lawyers," he added.
Visvanathan was referring to a report in The New Straits Times in April 2019 which quoted the Chief Registrar’s Office of the Federal Court as saying, "Trials in any court are not allowed to be broadcast live".
However, for the latest move, the Chief Registrar's Office said it was in line with the ongoing movement control order (MCO) to curb the spread of Covid-19.
Visvanathan cited the issue of CRT recordings raised in the Songsil Udtoom vs Public Prosecutor (Federal Court Criminal Review Application No:05(RJ)-1-01/2019 (B).
This is where the applicant had raised denial of the Federal Court’s CRT recordings of the appeal as a ground in his application to review the Federal Court’s earlier decision.
Visvanathan (below) said he thought the rationale to retain the status quo would have remained, especially in light of what happened after Teoh Beng Hock's death inquest in 2009.
He recalled that during that inquest, the counsel for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had made an interesting gesture, postulating a theory about how Teoh may have died of self-strangulation.
That one incident then became the hallmark of many jokes, Visvanathan said.
"The streamed video of the said gesture was shared by many.
"It has been replayed over and over again, even to this day.
"A quick search for such videos over the internet would surely yield multiple results," he said.
"It must always be borne in mind that the counsel then had merely acted in the best interests of his client when proposing such a theory as to Teoh’s cause of death.
"I think that if not for those videos on the internet, many today would not have heard of the said incident, let alone witnessed it," he added.
Against that backdrop, Visvanathan said he shudders to think of the antics of some people today who would resort to grabbing these types of videos in jest or out of spite against any member of the judiciary or lawyer now that court proceedings are streamed live.
Requiring the police or the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Council (MCMC) to investigate the perpetrators of such despicable videos would be a sheer waste of valuable time and resources, he added.
"Let it be known that I am always for expediency and fast resolutions of court matters. It is in the best interests of litigants to have matters resolved in an efficient and timely manner.
"Be that as it may, I am of the humble view that live streaming of all court proceedings may not further the cause of justice as hoped for, but may instead expose members of the judiciary and lawyers alike to possible ridicule and public odium," he said.
An in-depth study should first be conducted by the judiciary and all stakeholders including the Malaysian Bar to consider the suitability and appropriateness of streaming court proceedings live over the internet before it is implemented nationwide, he said.
"It is interesting to note that presently not even parliamentary debates are televised or streamed live over the internet in their entirety."
Meanwhile, Penang lawyer Shamsher Singh Thind (above) has questioned why the courts have to make their proceedings public, asking if it is legal or appropriate to do so.
Shamsher said it is understandable why the court wants a matter to be heard by way of video conference due to the MCO.
"But why is there any need for the matter to be broadcast to the public?" he asked.
According to media reports, three civil proceedings which will be broadcast online are cases involving Syarikat Pengangkutan Satu Hati Sdn Bhd versus three individuals; Zhao Fongliang, Jin Halfang and Zhu Cunhua.
"Regardless whether or not public interest is involved, the chief registrar made it clear in April last year that such practice is not allowed," Shamsher recalled.
"Even former premier Najib Abdul Razak's SRC and 1MDB cases were not allowed to be broadcast live," he said.
"I call upon the Malaysian Bar to comment on the legality of tomorrow's proceeding." - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.