Lawyer urges prosecution to appeal sentencing of Zahid's daughter, son-in-law

KUALA LUMPUR: The prosecution in the case of Datuk Nurulhidayah Ahmad Zahid and her husband, Datuk Saiful Nizam Mohd Yusoff, who were fined RM800 each for violating the movement control order (MCO), has been urged to file an appeal over the sentencing.

Senior lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said the prosecution had the right to appeal within 14 days of sentencing should there be any dissatisfaction over the sentence handed down.

"It is advisable for the Attorney General's Chambers to look into the matter since there has been a public outcry.

"If the magistrate's grounds for sentencing could not be supported, I would advise the prosecution to file a notice of appeal.

"It would be a good call for the AGC to do so," he said on Wednesday (May 6) when contacted.

On Tuesday (May 5), Nurulhidayah, the daughter of Umno president Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and her husband pleaded guilty to violating the MCO by moving from a house on Jalan Bayu Nyaman, Country Heights in Kajang and to the Department of Environment, Putrajaya at 9am on April 20.

Haniff said the public had "a good reason" to be dissatisfied over the apparent discrepancy in sentencing for MCO cases, especially when comparing Nurulhidayah's case with that of a single mother who broke the MCO when she left her place to buy drinks on Easter Day.

B. Lisa Christina, who has a six-year-old son, was initially jailed for 30 days, but after eight days in jail, she had her jail term revised by the High Court to the maximum fine of RM1,000.

She took to Facebook to complain about the apparent "double standards" between her sentencing and Nurulhidayah's.

"Why are there double standards? I need an explanation for this," she said.

Haniff said while the public must appreciate that the discretion in sentencing was completely with the courts, the court must exercise its discretion prudently.

"All mitigating factors must be considered. Apart from the prescribed sentences under the provision, the court could also use its discretion to impose bonds or social community service," he added.

Haniff also said that the public could use their voice on social media to do online petitions or write to the public prosecutor to encourage an appeal.

Senior criminal lawyer Datuk Baljit Singh Sidhu said the public could also write to the courts to call for a revision.

"Anybody can write to the court, saying that they are dissatisfied with what is happening and seeking the court to look into the matter, ” he added.

At the same time, Haniff said even without the AGC filing an appeal, the High Court could use its power and call up cases from lower courts to remedy it.

The higher courts' power for revision and supervision was provided for under Sections 31 and 35 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and Sections 323 and 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A senior lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said recalling cases from lower courts could only be done when a High Court judge was made aware that the sentence meted out was either wrong in law, or not in accordance with established principles of sentencing.

"Usually a High Court judge does not interfere in the exercise of judicial discretion by a lower court, but it could do so in cases where the sentences are 'manifestly or grossly inadequate or excessive'," he added.

Meanwhile, Senior Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob said sentences meted out by the court were for the judge to decide, adding the government did not interfere in court matters.

“Whatever the court decides is based on the facts of the case that are brought before it. It is up to the judge to decide, ” he said. - Star