Back
2022 MarsdenLR 1835
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
DATO SRI MOHD NAJIB ABD RAZAK – Appellant
Versus
PP & OTHER APPEALS (NO 2) – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: 05(L)-289-12-2021 05(L)-290-12-2021 & 05(L)-291-12-2021]
The court affirmed that while the right to legal representation is vital, requests for adjournments must be justified and cannot unduly delay justice.
Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution – Article 5(1) – Article 5(3) – Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 – Rulings on adjournments – Court has discretionary power to grant or refuse adjournments based on judicious consideration of case facts and circumstances – Right to a fair trial includes legal representation, but is not absolute (Paras 12-14, 16-24).
(B)
Discretion of Courts – Courts are encouraged to prioritize legal efficiency and fairness in scheduling trials, impacting public resources and administration of justice (Paras 23-26).
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought to adjourn appeals due to a change in legal counsel, citing lack of preparation as a reason (Paras 1-8).
Findings of Court:
The court found the request for adjournment unconvincing, noting that parties were aware of the fixed hearing dates well in advance (Paras 12, 19-21).
Issues
: The primary issue was whether the adjournment request was justified given the circumstances of counsel change and reading of the rules (Paras 12, 18).
Ratio Decidendi:
The court ruled that counsel must accept briefs responsibly and be ready on scheduled dates; undue adjournments harm justice and resource allocation (Paras 18-24).
Result:
The motion to adjourn was unanimously refused.
BROAD GROUNDS
(Application for Adjournment)
Introduction
[1] Having dismissed the motions to adduce additional evidence, we directed parties to proceed with the appeals. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Tuan Haji Hisyam Teh, however moves to adjourn the hearing of the appeals to a later date in three to four months. The basis of his application for adjournment is that he and his team only recently took over and that the appeals - spanning tens of thousands of documents - disclose strong serious points to be canvassed and that his team be given adequate opportunity to do a good job.
[2] To put it bluntly, the defence seeks an adjournment of these appeals for the simple reason that they are not prepared.
[3] The respondent's position is that the fixing of the dates of the appeals in August 2022 has been known since as far back as the case management on 8 April 2022 - which is some four months ago. Parties were then advised that the Court would proceed on the dates fixed. The Court's minutes of the case management on 8 April 2022 confirm this. Parties were therefore well aware that the Court will proceed on those dates.
[4] The Federal Court Registry, issued a Notice of Hearing dated 29 April 2022 informing all parties that the hearing of the appeals are scheduled on 15 August 2022 to 26 August 2022. Therefore, any change in counsel was done with full knowledge of the dates that have been fixed for hearing.
[5] Then, on 26 July 2022, the Court received a letter from the appellant's former solicitors, Messrs Shafee & Co stating that the appellant had discharged them as his solicitors on record. This is in encl 237. The former solicitors clearly indicated that the choice to discharge the former solicitors was the appellant's. Messrs Shafee & Co stated as follows:
"2. Sila ambil perhatian bahawa pada 25 Julai 2022, jam lebih kurang 5.00 petang, pihak kami telah menerima sesalinan surat dari Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Bin Hj Abd Razak ("Perayu") yang mana Perayu telah memberhentikan (discharged) dengan serta merta Tetuan Shafee & Co daripada bertindak sebagai kaunsel dan peguamcara yang mewakili beliau di dalam Rayuan- Rayuan Jenayah ini dan Prosiding-Prosiding berkenaan. Menerusi surat yang sama, Perayu telah memaklumkan bahawa beliau telah melantik Tetuan Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners ("ZIST") sebagai peguamcara."
[Emphasis added]
[6] It is obvious that the appellant took it upon himself to discharge his solicitors to the present ones, Messrs Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners ('Messrs Zaid Ibrahim') who in turn appointed Tuan Haji Hisyam Teh as lead Counsel.
[7] Messrs Zaid Ibrahim thereafter wrote to Court vide a letter dated 26 July 2022 notifying and confirming the change of solicitors. Their letter is to be found in encl 239. In this letter, Messrs Zaid Ibrahim requested for an urgent case management and sought permission to participate in a case management that was already fixed on 29 July 2022. They also stated their intention to put on record their motion to adjourn for the reason that "a wholly new team has taken over the conduct of the above matter".
[8] The Court's reply is to be found in encl 245 which contains a letter dated 28 July 2022 stating two things. Firstly, the Deputy Registrar of the Federal Court, Puan Wan Fatimah Zaharah binti Wan Yussof, confirmed the case management on 29 July 2022 and secondly, indicated the Court's directions that the hearing of the appeals would proceed as scheduled on 15 August 2022 to 26 August 2022. In short, the Court refused the adjournment.
[9] It is to be noted that despite having been discharged by the appellant on 25 July 2022, the appellant's former Counsel Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah had nonetheless attended the case management on 29 July 2022. This is reflected in the Court's minutes for case management on 29 July 2022.
[10] The case management minut
