In a statement, Tommy Thomas said that no written representations were ever made by Wan Ji or his lawyer to him.
Thomas also said he was not personally aware of the matter until after the High Court’s decision a few days ago.
“This is hardly surprising because on any given working day, the federal and 13 state governments are involved, literally, in hundreds of criminal and civil cases in all the courts of the land.
“It is therefore impossible for any one person to be personally acquainted with even a tiny fraction of these cases. Hence, delegation and decentralisation of authority are essential.”
Thomas, however, said that the Attorney-General’s Chambers was studying the options open to it with respect to Wan Ji’s appeal, but said in view of the preacher’s conviction by two courts, “the margin of discretion by my office is substantially limited”.
Earlier today, the Shah Alam High Court granted a stay of execution for the one-year jail term handed down on Wan Ji.
He was charged in the Shah Alam Sessions Court for publishing words deemed insulting against the Sultan of Selangor on his Facebook account, wanji.attaaduddi, on Nov 5, 2012.
The offence carries a maximum imprisonment of three years upon conviction.
The accused claimed trial and, on April 9 last year, he was found guilty and sentenced to nine months’ jail.
Wan Ji filed an appeal against the conviction while the prosecution cross-appealed the sentence.
Two days ago, the High Court dismissed Wan Ji’s appeal against the conviction but allowed the prosecution’s cross-appeal against sentence, resulting in his imprisonment being enhanced from nine months to a year.
He was denied a stay of sentence but following a formal application today, he was freed from prison pending the final outcome in the Court of Appeal.
From this sequence of events, Thomas said the cross-appeal by the prosecution on sentence was made prior to GE14.
In the case of the late Karpal Singh, who was charged under the Sedition Act, the Federal Court had acquitted the former national DAP chairman early this year.
The Court of Appeal had either acquitted appellants or reduced their sentences in other cases.
In a few cases, the prosecution had withdrawn their cases when the trials began.