Judge Suraya Othman, who chaired a three-member panel, said the court needed more time to deliberate on the public prosecutor’s appeal against the legal question in a case filed by the family of late fireman Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim against the government.
She said it was an important decision that would set a precedent for the lower courts.
“Looking at the submissions, we feel we need more time,” Suraya, who sat with Abu Bakar Jais and Hashim Hamzah, said.
The Shah Alam coroner’s court had in 2019 allowed Adib’s father, Mohd Kassim Mohd Hamid, to start committal proceedings against former attorney-general Tommy Thomas, accusing him of disrespecting the court by filing an affidavit that said Adib’s death was not due to injuries caused by someone.
The inquest into the fireman’s death was held from Feb 11, 2019 to July 24, 2019. The court subsequently ruled that Adib’s death was caused by “more than two unknown persons”.
Adib, who was with the Subang Jaya fire and rescue department, was seriously injured in a riot at the Sri Maha Mariamman Temple in USJ 25, Subang Jaya, on Nov 27, 2018 and died on Dec 17 the same year at the National Heart Institute (IJN).
Upon Thomas’ appeal, the High Court dismissed the family’s application to start the contempt proceedings. However, the court upheld a decision that the coroner’s court has the power to commence and start contempt proceedings.
Lower courts can decide on contempt proceedings, says family lawyer
Earlier today, the lawyer for Adib’s family, Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, argued that the lower courts, such as the coroner’s court, had the power to start and decide on contempt proceedings.
“However, their powers to punish individuals who disrespected the ongoing proceedings are limited.
“The lower courts can only mete out the maximum fine of RM150 or three weeks’ imprisonment,” he said.
Haniff said the government had erred by saying the coroner’s court was not part of the lower courts’ structure.
“The Subordinate Courts Act is clear in giving the power to a coroner to take cognisance of any form of contempt, be it at the face of the court or by a motion,” he said.
Meanwhile, Ambiga Sreenevasan, appearing for Thomas, said the coroner’s court had erred in allowing the family’s bid for committal proceedings through an application.
“Our case today was not contempt in the face of the court. The coroner took it upon herself and decided to grant leave for contempt proceedings. Such a method in moving a court to initiate contempt (proceedings) is reserved for the higher courts,” she said.