They said it was for lawyers for the accused and the government to enlighten the trial judge on the measure of punishment to be imposed once guilt had been established.
In any event, they said, the accused and the government could appeal the sentence imposed if they were unhappy with the decision of the trial court.
They said this in response to a statement by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) oversight committee member Mohd Noor Abdullah yesterday that judges were “soft” when it came to meting out sentences in corruption cases.
Mohd Noor, who is a member of the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, said those guilty of corruption should be jailed instead of being only fined a paltry amount compared with the vast sums of money gained from the crime.
Mohd Noor, who retired as a Court of Appeal judge, said judges would only be contributing to the administration of justice if they imposed deterrent sentences.
His complaint was that judges opted to only impose a fine on those found guilty when sentencing provisions in the MACC Act allowed for imprisonment terms and fines.
Retired Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram said it was not correct that courts were not severe when dealing with corruption cases.
He said courts always gave primacy to the public interest when sentencing any accused.
Sri Ram said the public prosecutor, as a matter of policy, pressed for and obtained a deterrent sentence.
“It is most unfair to criticise courts on issues of sentencing without first conducting a survey and collecting and analysing facts and figures. Talking without facts reflects an empty mind,” he added.
A former senior Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) officer said the current provision on penalty in the MACC Act was open to interpretation as to whether the court had the option to only impose a fine or mete out both a jail term and fine.
The MACC, which was established in 2010, was previously known as the ACA.
Mohamad Ramli Manan, a former Sabah ACA director, said this was because of the existence of the phrase “shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment to a term not exceeding 20 years; and a fine five times” the value of the movable and immovable property.
“In my opinion, the legislature had intended that both a jail term and fine must be imposed on the guilty party,” he said.
Ramli, who is now a lawyer, added that Section 40 of the MACC Act also allowed the court to order the forfeiture of the ill-gotten property of accused persons.
“The accused will have to pay a heavy price once convicted for graft,” he added.
Lawyer Naran Singh said it was unfair for Mohd Noor to make sweeping statements as the provision for a jail term allowed the court a minimum and maximum sentence.
“Each and every case has to be decided on its peculiar facts and circumstances. Judges are given the discretion after hearing mitigating and aggravating factors,” he said.
Naran said Mohd Noor’s emotional outburst amounted to contempt of court.
He said government lawyers had all the opportunity to appeal on inadequacy of a sentence and rectification by the superior courts.
“Even the public can write to a judge of the High Court for a revision if they are unhappy with the lower court’s decision to impose a light sentence,” he added.