Home > News > Nation
Wednesday September 3, 2014 MYT 9:10:00 PM
Wednesday September 3, 2014 MYT 9:12:24 PM
Court of Appeal judge Justice Linton Albert, who chaired a three-man panel, allowed his appeal in unanimous decision.
"We find that the petition is not set out for hearing," he said.
He said this was following the documents under Section 15 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (petition for admission with affidavit) not yet been filed by Judy, known as Jude.
Under the circumstances, he said, the panel ordered the petition to be heard and set Sept 18 for mention at the High Court.
In the coram on Wednesday were Court of Appeal judge Justice Rohana Yusof and High Court judge Justice Vernon Ong Lam Kiat.
Justice Albert told Bar Council's lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar that they still have the liberty to proceed with their objections at the High Court over Jude's bid to be a lawyer.
Earlier, Jude's counsel Dominic Selvam argued that the trial judge has erred in law and facts when she heard the notice of objection by the Bar Council against Jude's bid to be a lawyer and dismissed his "petition".
"The petitioner (Jude) have not filed his long call papers (documents filed upon completion of nine months of chambering). There is no petition filed which is required under Section 15 of LPA," he said.
In her ruling, trial judge Justice Zaleha Yusof said the conduct of Jude with regard to the arrest and detention of five KL Legal Aid Centre lawyers in 2009 showed that he was not of good character.
"The petitioner is found to be dishonest when he did not tell the truth while giving his sworn evidence before Suhakam when he as a police officer should respect the sovereignty of the law, Justice Zaleha said.
She said that Jude was not qualified under the Legal Profession Act 1976 to be admitted as an Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya.
Justice Zaleha held that the Bar Council has the interest to ensure a high level of professionalism among legal practitioners.
The Suhakam inquiry panel, with regard to the arrest of the five lawyers at the Brickfields police station on May 7, 2009, had found that Jude either consciously was not telling the truth or suffered from a serious bout of loss of memory.
Suhakam on April 23, 2010, held that the arrest and detention of the five lawyers when they assisted their clients involved in an illegal assembly in 2009 was a clear violation of human rights.
The lawyers were not present at the scene to participate in the cause of their clients, but were simply performing their duties as legal practitioners in defense of the 14 people arrested, Suhakam said in a 42-page decision read out by its then chairman Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah.
Justice Zaleha said that Suhakam had found Jude had committed clear transgression and violation of human rights and acted mala fide (in bad faith) when denying the five lawyers access to their counsel.
"To give a false statement is a serious matter and cannot be forgiven.
"The violation of human rights, in addition to the mala fide conduct, should not be a characteristic of an advocate and solicitor, she had said in her judgment.
Tags / Keywords:
court and crime, jude, lawyer, anwar, dishonest
Floods: More than 2,000 evacuees in Sabah, Sarawak
Retailers get two weeks to re-tag goods
Rocking good health
Ku Nan: 'Modest' FT Day celebrations this year
Berjaya to the rescue
Plenty of great fun and adventure pursuits in Adelaide
Schools from region to vie for Swinburne debating title
Amelia-Fie Cho win all-Malaysian final in Indian Open
Beware of gyms: 3 membership sign-up tricks to watch out for
Copyright © 1995-2015 Star Publications (M) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)