Back
2021 MarsdenLR 860
HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ATTORNEY GENERAL – Appellant
Versus
LOKMAN NOOR ADAM – Respondent
[Criminal Application No: WA-44-253-10-2019]
The intimidation of witnesses through threats constitutes contempt of court, potentially disrupting the administration of justice.
Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Article 126; Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91] - Contempt of Court - The Respondent made threatening statements against a witness in a pending trial, constituting contempt and interference with justice, as such actions can deter witness testimony (Paras 6, 9, 12, 48).
(B) Evidence - Standard of proof in contempt proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt as these are quasi-criminal in nature, necessitating a clear understanding of the allegations against the Respondent (Paras 9, 28, 45).
Facts of the case: Contempt proceedings were initiated by the Attorney General against the Respondent over public statements made regarding witnesses in a notable trial, influencing public perception and potentially deterring future testimony (Paras 1-4, 12).
Findings of Court: The Respondent's statements constituted threats to witnesses, creating a real risk of interference with the administration of justice (Paras 48-50).
Issues: Whether the Respondent's statements interfered with the ongoing trial and the adequacy of the applicant's allegations (Paras 11, 12, 24).
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed that intimidation of witnesses disrupts justice and constitutes contempt, emphasizing the importance of protecting witnesses from harassment (Paras 40, 46).
Result: The Respondent was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to one month imprisonment, with a stay pending appeal (Paras 66, 86).
JUDGMENT
A) Introduction
[1] These contempt of Court proceedings were instituted by the Learned Attorney General against the Respondent abovenamed in respect of statements made by the Respondent to the media and a police report lodged by him on 25 September 2019
B) Background
[2] The statements made by Respondent, among other things, is alleged to contain threats against prosecution witnesses in criminal trial No. WA-45-7-11/2018 and WA-45-8-11/2018 ("the 1MDB trial").
[3] The transcript of the statements contained in a media interview is exhibited as exhibit A-1 while the police report lodged by the Respondent is exhibit A-2 in the affidavit of Abd Hamid bin Ibrahim affirmed on 14th October 2019.
[4] The relevant contents of the police report (Sentul/018056/19) lodged by the Respondent is exhibited as exhibit A-2 in the Applicant's Affidavit in Support and is reproduced as follows:
"Berdasarkan keterangan Datuk Amhari Efendi Nazaruddin di Mahkamah Jalan Duta, sepanjang September lalu dalam kes 1MDB yang melibatkan Dato' Sri Najib terdapat pengakuan secara jelas yang dibuat oleh Datuk Amhari bahawa beliau secara terang telah terlibat dalam penyalahgunaan kuasa dan rasuah. Ketika bersekongkol dengan Low Taek Jho (Jho Low) dalam melakukan penipuan dan penyelewengan sehingga mengakibatkan Dato' Sri Najib teraniaya kerana perbuatan mereka. Saya membuat laporan ini untuk meminta pihak PDRM dan SPRM untuk menyiasat beliau kerana didakwa terlibat dalam penyalahgunaan kuasa dan rasuah dalam tiga perkara berikut:
1. Datuk Amhari mengakui beliau memiliki dan menerima gaji sebanyak RM25,000.00 sebulan dari syarikat swasta bernama ORBS Solutions Sdn Bhd semasa beliau masih bekerja sebagai penjawat awam.
2. Datuk Amhari mengakui di dalam Mahkamah bahawa beliau menerima dana sebanyak USD200,000.00 (RM840,000) dari Jho Low untuk membeli rumah pada tahun 2010, semasa beliau bekerja sebagai penjawat awam.
3. Datuk Amhari juga mengakui dihadapan yang Arif Hakim bahawa beliau telah menerima dana sebanyak USD880,000.00 (RM3.7 juta) dari Jho Low di dalam akaun bank asing BSI Switzerland semasa beliau bekerja sebagai penjawat awam.
Fakta-fakta yang dikeluarkan oleh Datuk Amhari sendiri di Mahkamah jelas menunjukkan bahawa beliau telah melanggar Akta SPRM serta Akta AMLA dan terlibat di dalam penyalahgunaan kuasa dan pengubahan wang haram. Adalah tiada masuk akal Dato' Seri Najib orang yang teraniaya akibat namanya digunakan oleh manusia-manusia durjana didakwa dan tercemar imejnya sedangkan mereka yang memperolehi manfaat dari pelakuan jenayah ini bebas dan tidak didakwa pula. Sekian laporan saya."
[5] Subsequent to the said police report, the Respondent made a media statement where he repeated part of the matters contained in his said police report.
C) The Law On Contempt
[6] Our jurisdiction does not have a codified law on contempt. However, art 126 of the Federal Constitution and s 13 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91] stipulates that the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and the High Court has the power to punish any contempt of itself.
[7] Apart from this the substantive law in respect of contempt is based upon common law.
[8] The applicable procedure with regard to contempt of Court is contained in O 52 of the Rules of 2012.
[9] It is established that the applicable standard of proof in contempt proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt.
[10] This is because contempt proceedings are classified as being quasi-criminal in nature. This is evident from the case of Achieva Technology Sdn Bhd v. Lam Yen Ling & Ors, where Mary Lim JC (as her Ladyship then was) cited the Federal Court judgment in the case of Manotech (M) Sdn Bhd v. Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd as follows:
"In the absence of a specific legislation on the contempt of Court as stated earlier by us, the contempt of Court in our country is guided by the common law principles. We agree with what was stated by Sir John Donaldson MR in A-G v. Newspapers Publishing Plc (CA), supra, that
