The appeal of MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman for Muar against his conviction and sentence for corruption in November last year has been held up because the written reasoning behind the judge’s decision was not available.

PETALING JAYA: By law, judges are required to provide written justifications for their decisions in criminal cases to facilitate the appeal process, a lawyer said.

Salim Bashir said the requirement is included in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) and the rules governing procedure in the higher courts.

“Judges in office must put their reasons (for their decision) in writing,” he said, except in cases where a judge has retired or died in office.

He said that without written support, appellate judges should re-examine the evidence.

Salim said that Article 307(3) of the CPC requires a court to provide the grounds for its decision if an appeal against that decision is pending.

He said that the former Supreme Court in the case of Balasingham v PP (1959) had held that the grounds of the decision must contain a reasoned opinion on the facts and law and not merely recite the conclusions reached.

Salim said in the case of Tan Ah Kow v PP (1996) that the court described the inordinate delay in providing the reasons for the decision as “intolerable”, saying it was a sheer farce of the fair and expeditious administration of justice.

The former president of the Malaysian Bar Association was responding to reports that Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman’s appeal to the Court of Appeal against his conviction and sentence for corruption has been stayed as the High Court has yet to make available his written reasons.

Judge Azhar Abdul Hamid had on November 9 last year orally found the former Minister of Youth and Sports guilty of complicity in criminal breach of trust, embezzlement of assets and money laundering. According to him, the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Both the Public Prosecution Service and the defense had presented their pleas in April last year.

Syed Saddiq was sentenced to five years in prison and a fine of RM10 million.

He also received two strokes of the cane, making him the first elected representative to be sentenced to flogging for a white-collar crime under the Criminal Code.

He filed an appeal that same day.

According to a guideline for legal practice, a judge at first instance must issue a written judgment within eight weeks of an appellant filing his notice of appeal.

Advocate S. Paul Krishnaraja said appellants convicted of serious crimes such as murder and drug trafficking expect their appeals to be heard expeditiously.

“They have no legal recourse if their appeal is allowed and they are released after serving years in prison,” he said.

According to Paul, every convicted person has the right to know why the judge rejected his defense.

He said it would be wise for judges to provide their written judgment in full when making a decision, otherwise it should be made available soon afterwards. This will ensure that the facts of the case remain fresh in the mind of the trial judge at the time the decision is made.

“A judge must also take into account the behavior of witnesses. It will be difficult to judge their credibility if the verdict is written much later,” he said.

Advocate Naran Singh said many judges outside the Klang Valley are overloaded with a plethora of civil and criminal cases and have little time to write judgments.

“Judges have to hear lawsuits, appeals from lower courts and other interlocutory requests,” he said.

“More cases are being registered because we have become a law-seeking society. Crime rates have increased and (more) charges are being filed in court,” he added.

Naran said court administrators and the Attorney General’s Chambers should provide continuous feedback to the government to ensure that the court’s resources are used optimally.