Salim Bashir said the requirement is contained in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the rules governing procedure in the superior courts.
“Serving judges must write their grounds (of decision),” he said, except in instances where a judge has retired or died in office.
He said that without written grounds, appellate court judges would be obliged to look into the evidence afresh.
Salim said Section 307(3) of the CPC requires a trial court to provide the grounds of its judgment if an appeal from that decision is pending.
He said the former Supreme Court had in the case of Balasingham vs PP (1959) held that the grounds of decision must set out a reasoned judgment on the facts and law, and not merely list the conclusions arrived at.
Salim said in the case of Tan Ah Kow v PP (1996), the court described the excessive delay in supplying the grounds of decision as “intolerable”, saying it had made an utter farce of the proper and expeditious administration of justice.
The former Malaysian Bar president was commenting on reports that Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman’s appeal to the Court of Appeal from conviction and sentence for corruption has been held up as the High Court has yet to make its written grounds available.
Justice Azhar Abdul Hamid had on Nov 9 last year orally pronounced the former youth and sports minister guilty of abetting criminal breach of trust (CBT), misappropriation of assets and money laundering, saying the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Both the prosecution and defence had made their closing submissions in April last year.
Syed Saddiq was sentenced to five years in prison and fined RM10 million.
He was also ordered to be given two strokes of the rotan, making him the first elected representative to be sentenced to a whipping for a white-collar crime under the Penal Code.
He filed his appeal on the very same day.
A court practice direction states that a trial judge must provide the written judgment within eight weeks of an appellant filing his notice of appeal.
Lawyer S Paul Krishnaraja said appellants convicted of serious crimes, such as murder and drug trafficking, would expect their appeals to be heard expeditiously.
“They have no legal remedy if their appeals are allowed and they are freed after having spent long years in prison,” he said.
Paul said every convicted person is entitled to know why the trial judge rejected his defence.
He said it would be prudent for judges to provide their written judgment in full when delivering a decision, failing which it must be made available soon after. This will ensure that the facts of the case remain fresh in the mind of the trial judge at the time the decision is handed down.
“A judge must also consider the demeanour of witnesses. It will be difficult to rule on their credibility if the judgment is written much later,” he said.
Counsel Naran Singh said many judges outside the Klang Valley are bogged down by an overload of civil and criminal cases and have little time to write judgments.
“Judges have to hear trials, appeals from the lower courts and other interlocutory applications,” he said.
“More cases are being registered because we have become a litigious society. Crime rates have gone up, and (more) charges are being filed in court,” he added.
Naran said judicial administrators and the Attorney-General’s Chambers must continuously provide feedback to the government to ensure optimum use of court resources.