This is merely an opinion made on a first look, shallow basis on the Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II case. 1) Why are there so many lawyers on one side? 15 lawyers acting for one client only, regardless who he or she is, is extraordinary for what has already been an extraordinary case itself. This is like reverse class action where its one lawyer representing a group of people in a lawsuit. 2) Based on my short stint as a law student, I dont think it is ethically right for a former judge, not even considering the fact that he was a Federal Court judge (a very fierce but firm one according to murmurs), to be a lawyer again. It presents practical and ethical challenges and may raise concerns that, in the words of the Malaysian Bars press statement, justice might not be done, or might not be perceived to be done. However, there is nothing expressed in any legislation or even the Federal Constitution itself that prevents a retired judge from going into the legal profession as a lawyer. 3) There are several practical and ethical challenges i.e. the very real possibility of judges and lawyers being intimidated by a former peer but the one concern that really amuses me is - how will he address a case that he had previously decided on during his time on the bench? Example: - Yang Arif, if you may look at the case of PP v A (example), according to myself, it was my opinion that the law should have been stated like this. Seriously, the thought of that happening is so funny yet so possible.
Posted on: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:23:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015