The case of Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamad ,formerly of the Sessions Crt,Industrial Crt,and all involved in matters involving Sun Media Group justify renewed calls for RCI into judicial corruption

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

The article below is being reposted given the recent calls for a Royal Commission Of Inquiry into judicial corruption.

See first 

Sessions Court judge Saufee Affandi's conviction of former Sun reporter S. Arulldass cannot be divorced from lawyer VK Lingam's interference with the judiciary, dealings with Eusoffe Chin



 

Eusoff Chin,2nd from left ,standing next
to disgraced Malaysian lawyer VK Lingam

RCI into judicial corruption needs to review work of Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamad ,formerly of the Sessions Crt,Industrial Crt,and all involved in matters involving Sun Media Group

by Ganesh Sahathevan


Dato' Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamad was a judge of the Sessions Court and the Industrial Court. In 2006 as chairman of the Industrial Court he handed down the decision in Sahathevan v Sun Media in a decision which is probably best described as imaginative,bold and courageous.


In 1998 the then "Sessions judge Saufee Affendi"...(went to Penang) from Kuala Lumpur to "specially hear" a matter against S. Arulldas a reporter from The Sun newspaper, who was charged with defying a court order which prohibited the publication of a matter before the courts.


Saufee's decision in '98 is reported in the stories below.Readers are reminded that mere reporters have no control over publication, which is entirely the decision of the editors. Despite that fact it was only the reporter who was charged, and finally found guilty as charged, after admitting sole guilt, by a judge brought up from Kuala Lumpur to "specially hear" the matter. It does appear as if the decision against the reporter was pre-determined so as to ensure that his superiors,and the publisher of The Sun, Sun Media Group Bhd, did not suffer any penalty.


Many of those involved remain active in the media and in public life in Malaysia, and hence their conduct with regards the above are well within the ambit of the upcoming Royal Commission Of Inquiry into judicial corruption.Readers are reminded that the RCI is meant to restore confidence in the judiciary.

This writer had in 2009 queried Saufee about his dealings with the owners of Sun Media, but he refused to provide a  response.

END

Court fines Sun reporter RM2,500.

By Cynthia Blemin

335 words

17 June 1998

The Sun

English

(c) The Christchurch Press, INL 1998

Butterworth, Tues: A Sun reporter was fined RM 2,500 today when he admitted defying a court order which prohibited the publication of certain information in the case of a sessions judge who allegedly performed oral sex on a man . Sessions judge Saufee Affendi, who had come from Kuala Lumpur to specially hear the case, delivered his ruling after a 90-minute mitigation plea by defence counsel R. Rajasingam.
He said the court had taken into account the facts of the case, the counsel's mitigation and the prosecution argument. Saufee said accused S. Arulldas' admission of guilt was the main mitigating factor which carries weight when passing sentence . He stressed the need for the media to maintain close rapport with the court. He warned Arulldas against repeating such a mistake and fined him.
Arulldas had earlier claimed trial and the hearing was fixed for three days from today. He admitted commiting the offence through an article published in the paper on March 25, after the facts of the case were read out to him. Arulldas, 42, was charged with contravening Section 101(2) of the Subordinate Courts Act, 1948 (Act 92), which had been invoked by the prosecution in the case involving Butterworth sessions court judge Rungit Singh.
Rungit had been charged with gross indecency and using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a man whose identity has been withheld by the court. The sub-section reads that "a court may, at any time, order that no person shall publish the name, address or photograph of any witness ... or any evidence or any other thing likely to lead to the identification of the witness."
A conviction under this sub-section carries a maximum fine of RM 5,000 or jail up to three years or both. Arulldas, who paid the fine, was accompanied by Sun Media Group editor-in-chief Ahmad Rejal Arbee and editor Andy Ng.
(c) 1998 Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd.
Document thesum0020010928du6h003qw

SUN REPORTER FINED RM2,500 FOR DEFYING COURT ORDER.

372 words

16 June 1998

BERNAMA Malaysian National News Agency

English

(c) 1998 Chamber World Network

BUTTERWORTH, June 16 (Bernama) - A journalist with the 'Sun' newspaper was today fined RM2,500 for defying a court order when reporting on a case involving a judge.
S.Arulldas, 42, who had pleaded not guilty when charged in the Sessions Court here on April 30, changed his plea today and apologised to the court.
He was charged with defying an order issued by the court on March 24 prohibiting the reporting of any evidence or details that might reveal the identity of the alleged victim in the case against judge Rungit Singh.
Rungit is facing three charges of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a man, and two alternative charges of committing acts of gross indecency by performing oral sex on the man.
In sentencing Arulldas, judge Sauffee Affendi said counsel R. Rajasingam's hour-long mitigation was the longest he had heard in his legal career and the points put forward had been noted.
According to Rajasingam, the court order was stale as the authorities had not issued a similar gag-order before Rungit was charged and earlier reports in 'The Star' and 'New Straits Times' newspapers had already identified the alleged victim.
He also questioned why the prosecution did not apply to the court to amend the alleged victim's name in the charge sheet to "Mr X" or "Mr Y" in view of the fact that the sheet would become a public document after that and anyone could obtain it.
Rajasingam said the court should only issue such orders to avoid interference in the administration of justice and not to avoid anyone from embarrassment.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin submitted to the court that the March 24 order was not applicable to media reports before the Rungit case came to court.
Arulldas was charged under Section 101 (2) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 which provides for a maximum fine of RM5,000 or three years in jail, or both, upon conviction.
Arulldas, who was accompanied by Sun Media Group editor-in-chief Ahmad Rejal Arbee, paid his fine.
Copyright(C) 1998 BERNAMA The Malaysian National News Agency

National

Reporter pleads not guilty to defying court order

299 words

27 March 1998

The New Straits Times

Main/Lifestyle; 2*

12

English

Copyright (c) 1998 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

PENANG, Thurs. - A reporter with the Sun daily pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court in Butterworth today to a charge of defying a court order stopping the media from publishing the alleged victim's identity in a case involving a Sessions Court Judge.

S. Arulldass, 42, claimed trial to the charge of contravening the Subordinate Courts Act, 1948 (Act 1992) before Judge Tarmizi Abdul Rahman.

On Tuesday, Sungai Petani Sessions Court Judge Ghazali Cha had made the order when another Sessions Court Judge Rungit Singh a/l Jaswant Singh was charged with using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a person.

In the case, Ghazali had invoked section 101 (2) of the Act, to stop the media, both print and electronic, from publishing the alleged victim's name, address, photograph or any information leading to the identification of the alleged victim.

Arulldass was represented by Jagdeep Singh Deo while DPP Yaacob Md Sam prosecuted.

Jagdeep is also one of six lawyers defending Rungit, who is facing three counts of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of the person and two alternative charges of committing an act of gross indecency with a person by performing oral sex.

The five other lawyers are Karpal Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Christopher Fernando, Ranjit Singh Dhillon and Teja Singh Panesar.

Arulldass, who was accompanied by his wife, Theresa, Sun editor Andy Ng, its regional (northern) editor Ng Kee Seng and several colleagues, was alleged to have used words which could identify the victim in the case.

Arulldass, if found guilty, could face a maximum fine of RM5,000 or three years' imprisonment or both.

Tarmizi fixed the case to be mentioned on April 30 and allowed bail at RM5,000.

Caption: Arulldass ... charged.

NSW CJ Tom Bathurst complains that public trust in the judiciary is declining, but still cannot comprehend that publicly undermining Fagan J has contributed to the problem: Bathurst should stand down, allow Andrew Bell to replace him as Acting CJ while public hearings are held to repair the damage

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                                      Chief Justice Tom Bathurst will save us from ourselves-Tim Blair, Daily Telegraph,2017

LSJ Online reported:

The Chief Justice (NSW Tom Bathurst) commented that many members of the public “derive their information about judges and the courts indirectly, whether that is through the media, word of mouth or ever popular courtroom dramas”.

Public trust in institutions is declining not only in Australia but in many other advanced industrialised countries.



Meanwhile Bathurst seems to have forgotten his part in encouraging that decline in public trust. As reported on this blog:

Muslim Legal Network accused Supreme Court Judge Fagan of lacking fairness, failing to perform his role of administering justice impartially: Soon after his Chief Justice Tom Bathurst praised MLN for upholding the rule of law :" doing a good job, cannot see how you can do it better"



This writer cannot recall any other instance where a Chief Justice has so publicly undermined a brother judge. The solution to the scandal is obvious:

Andrew Bell, President, Court of Appeal can be appointed Acting Chief Justice NSW immediately to deal with the judicial crisis created by the Chief Justice: Bathurst CJ's undermining Fagan J while promoting his own agenda not a one-off; Bathurst desire to insert himself into public debate damaged public perception of the judiciary' in 2017



Only by standing down can the damage Bathurst (and his team) have  inflicted on the standing of the judiciary in NSW be properly addressed.The public must be involved in the process if confidence is to be restored. Public hearings are required. 





TOE BE READ WITH 

Muslim Legal Network accused Sup Crt Judge Fagan of lacking fairness, failing to perform his role of administering justice impartially: Soon after his Chief Justice Tom Bathurst praised MLN for upholding the rule of law :" doing a good job, cannot see how you can do it better"

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The video excerpt above has been extracted  from the Muslim Legal Network's Facebook page. While the 2019 Iftar Dinner was held in May, the video at this link was only uploaded in November:

Muslim Legal Network New South Wales

MLN (NSW) Iftar 2019 Highlights

If you missed out on attending our Ramadan Iftar Dinner earlier this year, dont miss out on this highlights ree


Chief Justice Tom Bathurst's words of praise for the MLN are intriguing given this attack on his bother Supreme Court judge, Desmond Fagan: 
“We and various other organisations have made it clear that the comments by his Honour *Judge Desmond Fagan)  were disappointing to say the least,” said Muslim Legal Network NSW president Sarah Khan. “The role of the judiciary is one of impartiality and fairness, and justice should be seen to be done.”

The position of the network that represents Australian Muslim legal practitioners is that Justice Fagan failed to perform his role of administering justice impartially, and rather, conflated crime and religion. And it warned this could lead to further Islamophobic attacks.
The context of the above statements is explained (in part) in the article below, bot that is not really relevant. In most jurisdictions that type of comment from lawyers would be considered a subversion of the judicial system.Lawyers can expect penalties to be imposed, by the courts and their respective professional bodies.
Not it seems in the eyes of Chief Justice Thomas Francis Bathurst, who has recently given a speech in which he expressed some difficulty in discerning community standards.
END 

HOME

• BLOG
• SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CRITICISED FOR DIVISIVE REMARKS ABOUT ISLAM

Supreme Court Justice Criticised for Divisive Remarks About Islam
15/02/2019 BY PAUL GREGOIRE
Remarks made by NSW Supreme Court Justice Desmond Fagan in relation to the interpretation of “hostile passages” in the Quran have caused outrage amongst the local Muslim community, as well as sparked calls from the NSW legal profession for greater understanding of Islam.


Justice Fagan said on the 31 January that a number of NSW and Victorian cases reveal that terrorists rely on Quranic verses “to support an Islamic duty of religious violence”. And unless “Australian Muslims who wish to live in peace” denounce these particular verses, this will continue.

“If Islam accepts the entire Quran as Allah’s eternal instruction to believers, without explicit repudiation of verses which ordain intolerance, violence and domination,” Mr Fagan posited, “that unqualified acceptance will embolden terrorists”.

The Supreme Court justice further claimed that it was beyond the reach of the courts and law enforcement to prove “terrorists’ perceived obligation of jihad” is false, so it’s up to Australian Muslims to assert that the violence inciting passages are “not authoritative instructions from Allah”.

Muslim group have stated that the judge’s conjecture about the religion they adhere to is out of his remit. And while he was present in the court to sentence two offenders convicted on terror-related charges, he wasn’t supposed to be casting doubt upon an entire religion.
Dividing the community

“We and various other organisations have made it clear that the comments by his Honour were disappointing to say the least,” said Muslim Legal Network NSW president Sarah Khan. “The role of the judiciary is one of impartiality and fairness, and justice should be seen to be done.”

Thepositionof the network that represents Australian Muslim legal practitioners is that Justice Fagan failed to perform his role of administering justice impartially, and rather, conflated crime and religion. And it warned this could lead to further Islamophobic attacks.

According to the Muslim Legal Network NSW, “Australian Muslim leaders, religious scholars, community workers, lawyers and advocates have repeatedly rejected teachings relied upon to incite violence”.

Ms Khan further toldSydney Criminal Lawyersthat her organisation “is working to find a solution to such narrative and is endeavouring to engage with relevant professional bodies in order to educate and discuss a way forward and better serve the Australian community”.
Conspiring to do acts

Justice Fagan made the remarks as he was sentencing Sameh Bayda and Alo-Bridget Namoa: the so-called “Islamic Bonnie and Clyde”. Last October, the pair were found guilty of conspiring to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act, contrary to section 101.6(1) of theCriminal Code(Cth).

The now 21-year-olds were charged with this offence – which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment – following the planning a violent street robbery of two non-Muslims that Bayda and two other men were going to carry outon New Year’s Eve 2015.

Mr Bayda backed out of the attack at the last minute. And the pair were subsequently arrested. Text messages that Ms Namoa had attempted to delete were retrieved from her phone. These revealed the recently married couple discussing how they wanted to carry out a jihadist attack.

It was heard by the court a fortnight ago that both Bayda and Namoa have given up their extremist views. Justice Fagan found their crimes were of the “low order of seriousness” and he handed down sentences, which meant the pair are now eligible for parole after spending years on remand.
Purported silence

During his sentencing remarks, Justice Fagan outlined that the countless extremist recorded sermons and articles Bayda and Namoa had on their phones quoted “verses of the Quran which unmistakably instruct the believers to undertake jihad in pursuit of universal Islamic dominance”.

The judicial officer went onto list various verses from the Quran to prove his point. And he then cited Dr Rodger Shanahan who’d explained that Islam is not only limited to religion, but it’s also a legal and political system.

Justice Fagan further explained that jihadist propagandists “consistently invoke belligerent verses of the Quran” to justify their actions. And he said the pair should have known that “Allah’s instructions” to attack those of different religious persuasions wouldn’t stand up in the “civilised world”.

And the judge concluded that “the absence of express public disavowal of verses which convey Allah’s command for violence”, contradict the assurances from the Australian Muslim community in regard to Islam being “a religion of peace”.
Mending bridges

A week after Justice Fagan made his incendiary remarks, a number of distinguished members of the judiciary and the legal profession went to the Gallipoli Mosque in Auburn to attendan Islamic servicethat marked the opening of the 2019 law term.

Law Council of Australia president Arthur Moses SC said at the occasion that it’s important for “communication and understanding of the Islamic faith in Australia’s legal profession and judicial process”.

And whilst he said he wasn’t “passing comment on any recent case”, Mr Moses said “the criminal actions of a few” must not be “used to unfairly judge, discriminate against or condemn a whole community or religion”, as, “ultimately, we are one community”.
Exceeding a judge’s duty

The Law Council president also commended the appointment of NSW barrister Bilal Rauf as the new media spokesperson for the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC): an organisation representing Imams, clerics and Islamic scholars across Australia.

On the day following Justice Fagan’s comments, the ANIC condemned them ina statement. The umbrella organisation said it was disappointing that the judge thought it was “appropriate to give a broader commentary on Muslims”, whilst sentencing two offenders.

The ANIC stated it was clear that in regard to comments about the “‘unqualified acceptance’ of certain passages in the Quran by Muslims”, Justice Fagan had given no consideration to mainstream and orthodox Muslims, who “categorically reject extremist interpretations of the Quran”.

“Of most concern is that the comments and opinions expressed by the judge appear to exceed his duty of passing judgement on the specific case at hand,” the ANIC statement concluded, “rather than judging an entire faith community and its religious text.”

AUTHO
PAUL GREGOIRPaul Gregoire is a Sydney-based journalist and writer. He has a focus on human rights issues, encroachments on civil liberties, drug law reform, gender diversity and First Nations rights. Prior to Sydney Criminal Lawyers®, he wrote for VICE and was the news editor at Sydney’s City Hub.

PAUL'S

EMAIL

WEBSITE

ARTICLES

Malaysian Industrial Court's tendency to over-step its jurisdiction takes a new twist- Can the Court ever have the power to determine matters of sovereign immunity?

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

It has been previously reported on this blog that the Industrial  Court in Malaysia made findings of defamation despite not having the power to hear defamation matters:

Industrial Crt chairman Saufee Affandi decided that Singapore billionaire Peter Lim had been defamed-Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to hear defamation matters, and Saufee did not rely on any decision of any competent court that Lim had been defamed

It has also been shown that the Court in that instance imagined facts to suit its decision. 

That overreach has now gone to higher level.FreeMalaysia Today and others have reported: 

A three-member Court of Appeal bench chaired by Kamaludin Md Said, in allowing an appeal by L Subramaniam and the human resources minister, said it was for the (Industrial Court) to determine whether the foreign mission had absolute immunity from local laws.

 

To Be Read With 

Industrial Court to hear unlawful dismissal case against US govt
FMT Reporters
-February 3, 2021 5:11 PM

A former security guard at the US embassy in Kuala Lumpur is seeking reinstatement or compensation, alleging he was unlawfully dismissed from his job. (AFP pic)

PUTRAJAYA: The industrial court has been ordered to hear an unlawful dismissal case brought by a former security guard against the US government.

A three-member Court of Appeal bench chaired by Kamaludin Md Said, in allowing an appeal by L Subramaniam and the human resources minister, said it was for the tribunal to determine whether the foreign mission had absolute immunity from local laws.

Ragunath Kesavan, who represented Subramaniam said he submitted that there is no absolute immunity and the issue is a question of fact to be decided by the industrial court.

“The bench has quashed the High Court’s decision to allow a judicial review application last year that the embassy enjoyed immunity from local laws,” he told FMT.



Lee Swee Seng and M Gunalan were the other judges on the bench who heard the appeal conducted via virtual hearing.

The embassy, represented by Lim Heng Seng, could go to the Federal Court but it has to first obtain leave to appeal.

The embassy sacked Subramaniam in 2008 but in April 2019, the then human resources minister M Kula Segaran referred the matter to the industrial court to arbitrate the dispute.

However, the embassy went to the High Court to determine the immunity issue when the case was before industrial court chairman Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz.



Subramaniam, 52, who served the embassy for 21 years, is seeking reinstatement or compensation as a substitute for returning to work. He was earning RM2,000 a month at the time of the dismissal.