Thursday, 9 February 2012

Legal Gobbledegook of the day ...

"The news portal also quoted Justice Ahmad as saying

"it is immaterial as to whether Karpal’s

statements were grounded in fact or not".

Court of Appeal: Freedom of speech not absolute

February 08, 2012

PUTRAJAYA, Feb 8 — The rights and freedom of speech enshrined in the Federal Constitution are not absolute, the Court of Appeal ruled today.

As a result, statements made by Karpal Singh at a press conference in 2009 about Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak in relation to the political crisis in the state at the time, exceeded the boundaries permitted by the law and amounted to sedition.

This is despite the fact that Karpal (picture) in his capacity as a Member of Parliament and lawyer has the right to make political comments and express his views on the Constitution and the law, a 105-page judgment by Justice Datuk Ahmad Ma’arop added.

The Star Online reported Justice Ahmad as ruling the freedom of speech as enshrined in the Constitution meant a person had the right to speak, write or publish anything he liked so long as he does not break the law.

He also said the prosecution only needed to prove that the words uttered by Karpal could be deemed seditious — and not that they had led to an actual act of violence or an adverse reaction.

The news portal also quoted Justice Ahmad as saying it is immaterial as to whether Karpal’s statements were grounded in fact or not.


I'm trying to figure out Justice Datuk Ahmad Ma’arop here ....

He's a judge who is supposed to be interpreting the Law, and the highest Law in the nation, which is- The Federal Constitution.

So now, the FC says that we're a Constitutional Monarchy- which means, that the Monarchs are subject to the Law, and it it is imperative that they abide by it.

Now who is supposed to give the Legal opinions? The Lawyers, of course.
Now, this Ahmad Ma'arop says that the Lawyer cannot give a legal opinion if it was the Monarch who broke the law!!

Is he saying that while the Law is Supreme, nobody should say anything if if was a Monarch who broke the Law?
Does that mean that this judge, while sitting at the bench, is abandoning the concept of the "Supremacy of the Federal Constitution"?

It was further reported that:-
"Justice Ahmad further held the panel were in no doubt that the press conference was called with the hope that the proceedings would be reported. He said Karpal at the press conference had repeatedly uttered words that clearly inferred the Sultan of Perak had broken the law did not follow the law and did not respect the law."

In saying that an act "could be questioned in a court of law" based on his interpretation of a "Constitutional Monarchy", how is it that he came to the conclusion on the "inference"?
Does it not mean that Karpal has left it to the Judge to make that inference and did not do so himself?

Just how do we manage get such judges in the highest courts, I don't know ...
It must be their command of Ingeriss ...