LoyarBurok

NY Times: Clearer Limits Sought in Malaysia for Shariah Courts’ Role

Lord Bobo — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:00:58 PDT

The New York Times on 12 March featured the article titled above in reaction to the Indira Gandhi custody case where the Ipoh High Court in Perak overruled a Syariah court decision. LoyarBurok-kers K. Shanmuga, who acted for Ms. Gandhi and Edmund Bon are quoted in the article, reproduced below.

The Other Column That Wasn’t

David D. Mathew — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:00:56 PST

This article was to be published in Sin Chew Jit Poh on the 9th March 2010. Instead it fell victim to the oft-wielded Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, which incidentally is the subject of this spiked article.

The Conditions of Remand (Part 2)

Fahri Azzat — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:00:43 PST

Considering the implications of the presumption of innocence on the process of arrest, charge and remand in the criminal legal system, in two parts. This second part critically considers the arrest, charge and remand process from the perspective of the presumption of innocence and offers some suggestions on reform.

Was the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim from the Cabinet 11 years ago lawful?

NH Chan — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:00:37 PST

11 years ago, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim was sacked from the cabinet. An incisive look at the Federal Court decision that the sacking was lawful and why it is lawful.

The Conditions of Remand (Part 1)

Fahri Azzat — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:00:17 PST

Considering the implications of the presumption of innocence on the process of arrest, charge and remand in the criminal legal system, in two parts. The first part considers the process of arrest and charging of an accused and the conditions of remand.

Book Ban Decision No. 2 – March 8

Shanmuga K — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:00:58 PST

The grounds of decision of Ariff Yusof J in upholding the ban on K. Arumugam's Tamil book, "March 8" regarding the violent clashes in Kampung Medan on 8th March 2001.

Judges Can Fly – in the face of Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules! (Part 2)

NH Chan — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:00:10 PST

A thorough and critical consideration of the Federal Court’s inconsistent and dishonest approach to Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 as it relates to section 51 and 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Federal Court decisions in Adorna Properties v Kobchai Sosothikul [2006] 1 MLJ 417 and Asean Security Paper Mills Sdn Bhd v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd [2008] 5 AMR 377. This is the concluding part.

Judges Can Fly – in the face of Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules! (Part 1)

NH Chan — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:00:38 PST

A thorough and critical consideration of the Federal Court's inconsistent and dishonest approach to Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 in 2 parts. This part considers the recent Federal Court decision dismissing Anwar Ibrahim's application to review a previous Federal Court decision dismissing his application for disclosure of documents for his second sodomy trial.

The Call of Law: Moving the Call of Richard Haw

Fahri Azzat — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:00:49 PST

A reproduction of the approximate speech I had the honour of delivering on the occasion of Mr. Richard Haw @ Haw Chin Joo's call to the Bar before Justice Tuan Mohamad Ariff bin Md. Yusof sometime in 2009

Of sodomy, caning and potato chips

Art Harun — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:00:47 PST

Snacking on the difference in attitudes and competencies between the English Court of Appeal and the Malaysian Court of Appeal.