MAJLIS PEGUAM vs CECIL WILBERT MOHANARAJ ABRAHAM

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 MarsdenLR 855

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MAJLIS PEGUAM – Appellant
Versus
CECIL WILBERT MOHANARAJ ABRAHAM – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Bastian Vendargon,Lai Chee Hoe,Anne Vendargon ,Respondent Advocate: Rishwant Singh,Shahul Hameed Amirudin

Table of Content
1. the appeal arises from a complaint about professional misconduct and disciplinary action. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the background facts include allegations involving statutory declarations. (Para 3 , 4 , 14 , 22 , 23)
3. allegations of duress and retraction of statements. (Para 5 , 8)
4. db hearing findings and witness perceptions. (Para 15 , 16 , 18)
5. the court reviewed evidence and standards of proof applied in disciplinary cases. (Para 17 , 19)

[1] This was an appeal by the appellant/Bar Council against the decision of the High Court in dismissing the appellants appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Board ("DB"). The DB had dismissed the appellants complaint against the respondent, an advocate and solicitor.

[2] We had unanimously dismissed the appeal. We now give our reasons.

Background Facts

[3] The late Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ("Bala") was a prosecution witness in the murder trial of Altantuya Shaaribuu ("Altantuya"). On 1 July 2008, Bala signed a statutory declaration ("SD1") where he had, inter alia, implicated Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak ("Datuk Seri Najib") in a relationship with Altantuya. At all material times, Americk Singh Sidhu ("Americk") was Balas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 MarsdenLR 855

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAMAJLIS PEGUAM – AppellantVersusCECIL WILBERT MOHANARAJ ABRAHAM – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MAJLIS PEGUAM – Appellant
Versus
CECIL WILBERT MOHANARAJ ABRAHAM – Respondent