Excerpt:
In the case of Long bin Samat decided in 1974, the Federal Court held that the attorney-general (A-G) had wide discretion to select the provision of the law under which to prosecute a person.
The pronouncement in this case has been read to affirm a wide discretion in the A-G whether to prosecute at all.
But if you look carefully at the judgment of Lord President Suffian in the case, it is clear that the Federal Court was only speaking of the A-G's wide discretion to choose the section of the law under which a person is to be prosecuted.
But in the case of Johnson Tan (1977), Suffian accepted that the discretion is not as wide as thought to be.
This is what he said: "In deciding that the A-G is not constrained by Article 8 when deciding whether or not to prosecute and if so on what charge, whether a lesser or a greater one, it must not be thought that he may act dishonestly.
"The public of whose interest he is the guardian has a right to expect him to act honestly, without fear of powerful national and local figures or of the consequences to him personally or politically, and without favouring his relatives and friends and supporters, his principal concern being to maintain the rule of law so that there will be no anarchy and to maintain standards in public life and the private sector; and if he did not do his duty honestly and properly the public would be able to show their disapproval not however in the courts but elsewhere and in the last resort by voting against the party of which he is a member."
This shows that an A-G must act honestly and that there is a legitimate interest in every member of the public that he will act honestly.
Another way of saying the same thing is that the A-G must act in good faith and must not be swayed by irrelevant considerations.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/a-g-s-discretion-under-article-145-3-gopal-sri-ram#sthash.3ZYCC4uY.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment