Lawyer P Uthayakumar today welcomed an international legal organisation's report that lambasted Malaysian authorities for filing criminal intimidation case against him for allegedly threatening a police officer.

The Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) issued a 10-page report yesterday condemning the charges against Uthayakumar, and his arrest and detention by the police over the offences.

"The Malaysian legal system has been under international scrutiny for its prosecution of lawyers, particularly through the use of the contempt power.

"The arrest and prosecution of Mr Uthayakumar should thus be considered within the context of previous prosecutions against lawyers and previous reports that lawyers in Malaysia have been facing difficulties in carrying out their work freely and independently," said the ICJ's Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.

Independence upheld

When contacted, Uthayakumar said the report was an "icing on the cake" for his cause in the pursuit of justice.

"The release of the report came exactly a year after Tharma Rajen 's (demise). We were attending prayers yesterday when the report came," he said.

Commenting on the report, Uthayakumar said it was "fair and independent". "I am happy that the report upheld the independence of lawyers to discharge their duties without fear or favour."

"We all know that judges and the judiciary is supposed to be independent. This must also be applied to lawyers," he said.

The lawyer representing Uthayakumar in the criminal intimidation proceedings, M Manoharan, said the case had attracted widespread international attention.

"I received the call from the ICJ asking for permission to observe the case. We have no objections and in this case, neither did the judge (Suriyadi). It is entirely up to the judge if other parties are allowed to hold watching briefs," he said.

International scrutiny

Manoharan said the case attracted the attention of several other organisations and embassy representatives who had requested for more information.

On the appeal , Manoharan said it was entirely the right of the AG to appeal although the prosecution should have considered the wishes of the High Court judge for the matter to be settled amicably.

"The April 8 decision was the first of its kind whereby a lawyer was charged for intimidation but discharged by the high court before the actual hearing started. The judge clearly felt that the charge was groundless," he said.

The lawyer said he is still uncertain of the prosecution's reasons for challenging Suriyadi's decision.

"We have not received the record of appeal yet from the prosecution. Once we receive these documents, the prosecution would have to file their grounds for appealing against the decision," he added.