皇冠信用网（www.hg108.vip）:A day of judicial discretions exercised wisely

哈希竞彩游戏源码出售（www.hx198.vip）采用波场区块链高度哈希值作为统计数据，游戏数据开源、公平、无任何作弊可能性，哈希竞彩游戏源码出售开放单双哈希、幸运哈希、哈希定位胆、哈希牛牛等游戏源码下载、出售。

THE Federal Court unanimously dismissed Najib Razak’s bid to adduce additional evidence in his final appeal against being convicted of misappropriating funds from SRC International Sdn Bhd.

The five-judge panel led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat ruled that Najib’s application lacked merit as the evidence his defence team claimed to be fresh had no relevance to the former prime minister’s knowledge of the RM42 million, which is the main issue in the SRC International case. 

In all honesty, the decision is not unexpected. The law on the matter is settled. It is entirely at the discretion of the appellate court.

A judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously. This simply means that the discretion must be exercised based on established legal principles.

The principles have been summarised in the judgement of Lord Parker CJ in the English case of R v Parks [1961]:

(i)    the evidence sought to be called must be evidence that was not available at the trial;

(ii)    the evidence must be relevant to the issues;

皇冠信用网（www.hg108.vip）是一个开放皇冠信用网即时比分、皇冠信用网开户的平台。皇冠信用网平台（www.hg108.vip）提供最新皇冠信用网登录，皇冠信用网APP下载包含新皇冠体育代理、会员APP，提供皇冠信用网代理开户、皇冠信用网会员开户业务。

(iii)   it must be credible evidence in the sense of being capable of belief; and

(iv)   the Court will, after considering the evidence, go on to consider whether there might have been reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the guilt of the appellant if that evidence had been given together with other evidence at the trial. 

The four conditions or requirements above are cumulative. Based on the Federal Court ruling as reported, Najib had failed the relevancy requirement.

The Federal Court had also unanimously dismissed the request by Najib’s legal team to postpone the hearing of his appeal.

In exercising discretion to refuse or grant an adjournment, the court is entitled to consider the effect of an adjournment on court resources and the competing claims by litigants in other cases awaiting hearing, as well as the interests of the parties.

It has long been recognised by the courts that the resolution of disputes serves the public as a whole, not merely the parties to the proceedings. Adjournments delay final adjudication of cases. Costs are incurred. Therefore, further delays and costs are undesirable.

As the Chief Justice puts it succinctly, justice delayed in the SRC International case is also justice denied to other accused persons. – August 16, 2022.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.