Received an email from a friend who alerted me to this garbage. If the content and tone of this rubbish does not constitute instigating disaffection against the administration of justice and bringing the character of judges into disrepute under the guise of free speech , I do not know what is!. The extent to which some charlatan will stoop to indirectly mock a judge and the administration of justice is mind-boggling:
"Justice Faiza’s pronouncement of the law reminds of a warning issued by the Privy Council in an appeal that emanated from New Zealand some years back : that you cannot refine the law in the process of its interpretation and application to the point where the law becomes an ass."
Hence Faiza is guilty for being too careful(in parsing the law) and draws the flak while Ian Chin's "blase" interpretation draws the kudos for it falls in with presumably, the worldview and personal inclinations of the writer ( This is what the post implies) :
"That, in my view, was a sound and sane construction of two provisions of two different pieces of written law to harmonise a seeming contradiction."
The title itself is evidence evidence of self-incrimination: The law doesn’t need fixing, dummy! The problem lies with some legal minds in high places.
The fact that the writer wilfully commented on a case currently in the Courts of Appeal is tantamount to subjudice and the article can be legally construed as an attempt to subvert the cource of justice.
Lest I be accused of indulging in mob-justice, of lynching an innocent in court of the marketplace, of being a judge, prosecutor, jury and executioner in my own kangaroo court, let me cite a plethora of legal authorities from here, the UK, and the Commonwealth to back my assertion that contempt has been committed in this instance.
"Justice Faiza’s pronouncement of the law reminds of a warning issued by the Privy Council in an appeal that emanated from New Zealand some years back : that you cannot refine the law in the process of its interpretation and application to the point where the law becomes an ass."
Hence Faiza is guilty for being too careful(in parsing the law) and draws the flak while Ian Chin's "blase" interpretation draws the kudos for it falls in with presumably, the worldview and personal inclinations of the writer ( This is what the post implies) :
"That, in my view, was a sound and sane construction of two provisions of two different pieces of written law to harmonise a seeming contradiction."
The title itself is evidence evidence of self-incrimination: The law doesn’t need fixing, dummy! The problem lies with some legal minds in high places.
The fact that the writer wilfully commented on a case currently in the Courts of Appeal is tantamount to subjudice and the article can be legally construed as an attempt to subvert the cource of justice.
Lest I be accused of indulging in mob-justice, of lynching an innocent in court of the marketplace, of being a judge, prosecutor, jury and executioner in my own kangaroo court, let me cite a plethora of legal authorities from here, the UK, and the Commonwealth to back my assertion that contempt has been committed in this instance.
Readers, please bear in mind that the constraints of this fora precludes an extensive elaboration of the issues involved but i will provide the relevant reference for your perusal, where possible.
(to be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment