Search
兆豐洗錢案 真的不尋常
當美國法院判決書出爐，北檢主動很罕見地替被告澄清，不是偵查不公開嗎？
檢察官突然變成被告的義務辯護律師，這不是很奇怪嗎？
判決書援引原告的証人之証詞，然後判原告勝訴；這個道理不是很清楚了嗎？怎麼會說出「原告的證詞不是判決書」這樣的護航說法呢？
如果是偽證，兆豐為何不告偽證，還要儍儍付57億？
看完這8頁的判決書，不得不讓人懷疑兆豐洗錢背後邪惡的動機。
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court-appellate-division/1710276.html
美國Oregon拒絕為同性伴侶製作婚禮蛋糕的老闆所提上訴被駁回啦，也就是說，這個對同志伴侶的拒絕被認為已違反該州的反歧視法，無法用空泛的宗教自由來主張豁免!
這個案子的當事人背後，還有一個勇敢、據理力爭的同志媽媽...(感人)
The case began when Rachel Bowman-Cryer went to the suburban Portland bakery with her mother in January 2013. They met with Aaron Klein, who asked for the date of the ceremony and the names of the bride and groom.
When told there was no groom, Klein said he was sorry but the bakery did not make cakes for same-sex weddings. According to documents from the case, Rachel and her mother left the shop, but returned a short time later. As Rachel remained in the car, in tears, her mother went in to speak with Klein.
The mother told Klein she had once thought like him, but her “truth had changed” when she had two gay children. Klein responded by quoting Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer praised the ruling in a statement released through their attorney: “It does not matter how you were born or who you love. All of us are equal under the law and should be treated equally. Oregon will not allow a ‘Straight Couples Only’ sign to be hung in bakeries or other stores.”
Ramai yang ingat, kes Najib Razak sengaja dilambat-lambatkan.
Dalam kita memastikan Najib Razak akan mendapat “fair trial”, adalah juga penting memastikan prosedur kehakiman adalah dijalankan mengikut proses undang-undang yang betul.
There has been a lot of discussion on Najib's trial being adjourned indefinitely.
I think media reporting on the court proceedings doesn't fully explain what transpired because it is very technical.
There is a lot to unpack and I think a bit of context is required here.
When Najib was first charged, his case was at the Sessions Court.
In the hierarchy of courts in Malaysia, we have the subordinate courts, which are the Magistrates Court and Sessions Court.
Magistrates Court will try less serious offences (like petty theft, assault, etc) and Sessions Court will try more serious offences (rape, cheating, criminal breach of trust).
And then we have the superior courts – the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.
The High Court will try the most serious of offences (usually involving capital punishment) or complex cases. The Court of Appeal and the Federal Court are the appellate courts (they do not try cases but only hear appeals from the High Court).
What happened after Najib was charged was the Public Prosecutor issued a certificate to transfer the case to the High Court from the Sessions Court because the High Court was in a better position to try this complex case.
So after the case was transferred to the High Court, trial dates were fixed and directions were given.
However, the Public Prosecutor (as a matter of principle) withdrew the certificate of transfer because he was of the opinion that the particular provision of law which allows him to issue the certificate is unconstitutional in that it allows the Public Prosecutor to take away the powers from the Court. This is wrong because in our democracy, there is separation of powers between the executive, legislature and the judiciary. Each branch of government is independent of one another and should not encroach into the domain of the other.
Once Najib’s case is before the courts, the Public Prosecutor being part of the executive should not decide which court hears the case, that is for the courts to decide.
So it was on that basis, the Public Prosecutor took a principled position that the certificate is akin to him encroaching into the domain of the judiciary and that is why he decided to withdraw the certificate. He probably should have done this earlier.
So once the certificate was withdrawn, the case should be sent back to where it originally came from, the Sessions Court. However, after the certificate was withdrawn, the High Court Judge on his own motion (as allowed under the law) decided to transfer the case from the Sessions Court to him.
Now here is where the dispute lies, when the Public Prosecutor withdrew the certificate. Najib’s legal team argued that he could not do so because by doing so he would be encroaching into the domain of the judiciary. Najib’s legal team also argued that it was improper for the High Court Judge to bypass the High Court Registry and transfer the case directly back to him, the High Court Judge should have let the Registrar of the High Court decide which judge should hear the case.
The High Court did not agree with Najib’s legal team’s argument and proceeded to allow the withdrawal of the certificate and transferred the case directly back to him. And Najib’s team appealed.
When Najib’s team appealed, they asked for the trial to be stayed (or in laymen terms, for the trial to be halted) pending the outcome of the appeal because if he succeeds on appeal, the trial will be a nullity. So the prudent thing to do is to have the appeal decided first rather than risking a waste of time and costs.
I don’t think it’s a tactic to delay the trial because there are genuine concerns as to what happens when the Public Prosecutor withdraws the certificate. I think it concerns procedural justice. To a lay person, everything that has happened here may seem to be lawyers being pedantic but I think there is need to adhere strictly to due process. Should Najib have been discharged in the High Court and charged again with the same offence in the Sessions Court? These are questions which the Court of Appeal must answer.
Now that the Court of Appeal has ordered that the trial be halted until they decide on Najib’s appeal, we will just have to wait until Najib’s appeal is decided. It is uncertain when that will happen but this is an important case of public interest so the appeal should be heard fairly quickly.
The Public Prosecutor could of course appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to halt the trial (because Malaysia usually we have two tiers of appeal) but I think the Court of Appeal arrived at the right decision and I don’t think the Federal Court will decide differently.
If the Court of Appeal agrees with Najib’s legal team then we will most likely see the charges against Najib be dropped and charged against at the Sessions Court as a new case and most likely transferred again to the High Court. And the public will have to wait perhaps a few more months before the trial begins.
If the Court of Appeal disagree with Najib’s legal team then Najib’s trial will proceed at the High Court at new trial dates which again, could be a few more months away.
Of course, Najib will have the option of appealing to the Federal Court as a last resort and that could further delay matters.
Either way, it could be few more months ahead before we see the trial commences.
You can also listen to my interview at BFM89.9:
Anwar (@inianwarhadi) membincangkan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan yang membenarkan seorang anak luar nikah untuk ber-bin-kan ayahnya sendiri.
Link Sumber:
artikel malay mail
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/out-of-wedlock-children-can-bear-fathers-surname-appellate-court-rules?utm_content=buffer0c74d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#EsqySDoyTTlGW1sG.97
kenyataan mufti perak
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/perak-mufti-outraged-over-coa-decision-on-out-of-wedlock-name?utm_content=buffer52680&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#rP7ad5HsRSV0v8bp.97
Facebook Page Bebas
https://www.facebook.com/bebasmsia/?ref=br_rs
Judgement paper
http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/directory/judgment/file/W-01(A)-365-09-2016.pdf
Artikel berita harian
https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/kes/2017/07/306289/jpn-tidak-terikat-fatwa-nama-bapa-anak-tidak-sah-taraf
Artikel ismaweb
http://www.ismaweb.net/2017/07/ummah-bimbang-keputusan-mahkamah-rayuan-kes-nasab-anak-luar-nikah/
民間司改會高涌誠律師認為
2013年4月24日反迫遷行動起訴案
大安分局警方並不是依法執行業務
五名被告堅持無罪 苦行向高等法院提出上訴
appellate court 在 Trial Court vs. Appellate Court: What is the Difference? 的八卦
... <看更多>