Review, a substantive forward move in the law,or an abuse of court process?
1. I think, Donald Pleasence, in the film the eagle has landed, as Himmler said it best. It's like the charge of the light brigade.
2. That's what I think of the attempt to have the judgment of the federal court reviewed. It's an exercise in futility. Nice try.
3. I am afraid I am no lawyer and can offer little legal reasoning. I am trained as an analytical economist. I analyse by way of some research. So here is my two cents' worth
4. I have always thought that the federal or supreme court as representing the penultimate finality in the legal process. Apparently not. The supreme court can review its own decisions. To make sure it has not made a mistake.
5. That's saying that it (the supreme court)recognizes its own fallibility. Judges are human, after all. It's possible they make mistakes if that is so, it is imperative for them to correct the mistakes
This gave rise to the judicial saying-to perpetuate an error is no virtue, but to correct is a compulsion of judicial conscience.
6. One judge can make mistakes. But 9 of them, arriving at the same conclusion, as in Ali babavum Najib's case? Impossible!
7. Asking the supreme court to review its own judgments, is like asking the judges to shoot themselves, to put it dramatically.
8. Better to ask the lawyers asking for a review to shoot themselves first, or ask the by now, despondent clients to jump from the Petronas twin towers
9. The threshold to pass, asking for a review is like climbing a vertical rock face, or taking an example from Malay literature, is like preparing 7 pans of hati nyamuk.
10. Thus, asking for a review is like asking sultan Mahmud, 7 conditions to fulfil before bonking puteri gunung ledang.
11. Build a golden bridge from Melaka to Gl.
2. That's what I think of the attempt to have the judgment of the federal court reviewed. It's an exercise in futility. Nice try.
3. I am afraid I am no lawyer and can offer little legal reasoning. I am trained as an analytical economist. I analyse by way of some research. So here is my two cents' worth
4. I have always thought that the federal or supreme court as representing the penultimate finality in the legal process. Apparently not. The supreme court can review its own decisions. To make sure it has not made a mistake.
5. That's saying that it (the supreme court)recognizes its own fallibility. Judges are human, after all. It's possible they make mistakes if that is so, it is imperative for them to correct the mistakes
This gave rise to the judicial saying-to perpetuate an error is no virtue, but to correct is a compulsion of judicial conscience.
6. One judge can make mistakes. But 9 of them, arriving at the same conclusion, as in Ali babavum Najib's case? Impossible!
7. Asking the supreme court to review its own judgments, is like asking the judges to shoot themselves, to put it dramatically.
8. Better to ask the lawyers asking for a review to shoot themselves first, or ask the by now, despondent clients to jump from the Petronas twin towers
9. The threshold to pass, asking for a review is like climbing a vertical rock face, or taking an example from Malay literature, is like preparing 7 pans of hati nyamuk.
10. Thus, asking for a review is like asking sultan Mahmud, 7 conditions to fulfil before bonking puteri gunung ledang.
11. Build a golden bridge from Melaka to Gl.
Build a silver bridge
7 dulangs of hati nyamuk
7 dulangs of hati hama
The tears from melaka virgins 7 tempayan
Juice from virgin beetlenuts
A bowl of blood from the sultans' heir.
7 dulangs of hati nyamuk
7 dulangs of hati hama
The tears from melaka virgins 7 tempayan
Juice from virgin beetlenuts
A bowl of blood from the sultans' heir.
We ask the lawyers to do these conditions. Can aah?
12. The threshold to pass is like pushing a dromedary camel through the eye of a needle.
13. Let me put it more crudely. Asking the supreme judges to review their own judgments is like asking the judges to look at their own genitals. Sorry, mate.
It all started with the blasted Pinochet exception. Confound him!
14. Since the judges are also human, they would see the asking for a review as presumptuous, impudent and cocksure. Now tell me, which judges will entertain this impudence?
15. Nevertheless, since the Pinochet exception, many lawyers have tried this rabbit out of the hat trick. I am happy to report that all failed.
16. Again, as Donald Pleasence says, a review is like a charge of the light brigade. An exercise in futility, belabouring the obvious.
17. A review should be distinguished from an appeal. An appeal is a judicial examination of a higher court of a decision made by a lower court. It is a remedy provided by law to the aggrieved party. It can lead to a substitute of the decision of the lower court.
18. A review is only available to the supreme court. It's asked to see whether mistakes have been made that can lead to a miscarriage of justice. The mistakes must be so glaring, obvious and fatal to the judgment. If they are not, the complainant's lawyers can go fly kite.
19. A review is not a rehearing of a case. It's not a rehearsal to hear a decision made to the supreme court. The supreme court in northern indian caterers ltd vs the lieutenant governor of Delhi said:-
20. It is well settled that a party will not get a review of a decision of this court for the purpose of rehearsing and a new judgment made. The normal rule is, the decision of the supreme court is final.
21. What is the aim of a review, anyway? As I understand it, a review is not going to get a fresh judgment. A review is an acknowledgement of human fallibility only. It's not an appeal disguised as a review.
22. The judges did make mistakes in deciding Najib's case. If the decision is going to be corrected and improved, the areas are:-
23.
12. The threshold to pass is like pushing a dromedary camel through the eye of a needle.
13. Let me put it more crudely. Asking the supreme judges to review their own judgments is like asking the judges to look at their own genitals. Sorry, mate.
It all started with the blasted Pinochet exception. Confound him!
14. Since the judges are also human, they would see the asking for a review as presumptuous, impudent and cocksure. Now tell me, which judges will entertain this impudence?
15. Nevertheless, since the Pinochet exception, many lawyers have tried this rabbit out of the hat trick. I am happy to report that all failed.
16. Again, as Donald Pleasence says, a review is like a charge of the light brigade. An exercise in futility, belabouring the obvious.
17. A review should be distinguished from an appeal. An appeal is a judicial examination of a higher court of a decision made by a lower court. It is a remedy provided by law to the aggrieved party. It can lead to a substitute of the decision of the lower court.
18. A review is only available to the supreme court. It's asked to see whether mistakes have been made that can lead to a miscarriage of justice. The mistakes must be so glaring, obvious and fatal to the judgment. If they are not, the complainant's lawyers can go fly kite.
19. A review is not a rehearing of a case. It's not a rehearsal to hear a decision made to the supreme court. The supreme court in northern indian caterers ltd vs the lieutenant governor of Delhi said:-
20. It is well settled that a party will not get a review of a decision of this court for the purpose of rehearsing and a new judgment made. The normal rule is, the decision of the supreme court is final.
21. What is the aim of a review, anyway? As I understand it, a review is not going to get a fresh judgment. A review is an acknowledgement of human fallibility only. It's not an appeal disguised as a review.
22. The judges did make mistakes in deciding Najib's case. If the decision is going to be corrected and improved, the areas are:-
23.
(A)The fine should be more than rm210m
(B)The jail should be more than 12 years.
(B)The jail should be more than 12 years.
Improve and correct these.
24. The supreme court is extremely careful when it reaches a decision. It's careful not to exclude all the evidences available. Don't tell me within the 4 years, you cannot discover all the evidences to support your case. The supreme court is extremely careful not to make error in fact and law.
So, in my opinion, a review of the judgment of the supreme court is doomed ab initio.
25. There are more complex legal reasoning as to why a review will fail. These are beyond me at the moment. Hey, I am no lawyer, maa.
26. Plus, I am too lazy to read up the Indian cases. Ahlawat vs the state of haryana, Kerala state electricity board vs hitec and hydrogen ltd and many others
27. If there are allegations about the miscarriage of justice, can it be said that a review is just an abuse of court process?
24. The supreme court is extremely careful when it reaches a decision. It's careful not to exclude all the evidences available. Don't tell me within the 4 years, you cannot discover all the evidences to support your case. The supreme court is extremely careful not to make error in fact and law.
So, in my opinion, a review of the judgment of the supreme court is doomed ab initio.
25. There are more complex legal reasoning as to why a review will fail. These are beyond me at the moment. Hey, I am no lawyer, maa.
26. Plus, I am too lazy to read up the Indian cases. Ahlawat vs the state of haryana, Kerala state electricity board vs hitec and hydrogen ltd and many others
27. If there are allegations about the miscarriage of justice, can it be said that a review is just an abuse of court process?
0 comments:
Post a Comment