VK Lingam fails in final appeal to return to practice law
This followed the decision by a three-member panel of the Federal Court today in dismissing Lingam's appeal.
His appeal was against the decision of the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board...
Lawyer VK Lingam who was implicated in the fixing of judicial appointments lost his final appeal in the Federal Court to return to practice law.
This followed the decision by a three-member panel of the Federal Court today in dismissing Lingam's appeal.
His appeal was against the decision of the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board in striking him off the roll of the Malaysian Bar for alleged misconduct relating to a video clip over judicial appointments.
Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who chaired the panel, held that it was undisputed that the disciplinary committee, the disciplinary board, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal had all made concurrent findings of Lingam having interfered with judicial appointments.
She said counsel Razlan Hadri Zulkifli, representing the Bar Council, highlighted that Lingam was unable to contradict the account of Loh Gwo Burne who heard the latter (Lingam) attempting to interfere with judicial appointments.
“It is our view that it does not matter which judicial appointments exactly the appellant (Lingam) attempted to interfere with, and findings to that extent are not relevant,” she said.
She added that the important point was the findings were made on Lingam’s attempt to interfere and they were not rebutted.
Justice Maimun, who sat with Federal Court judges Mary Lim Thiam Suan and Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, ordered Lingam to pay costs of RM30,000.
In the court's unanimous decision, Justice Maimun said there was also direct evidence from Loh who directly witnessed Lingam speaking on the phone as alleged in a video clip.
She said the court was satisfied that Loh did in fact testify on the video and confirmed the contents of the video were in fact uttered by Lingam, whose real name is Kanagalingam Vellupillai.
“The disciplinary committee, the disciplinary board, and the courts below relied on the evidence of Loh to confirm the contents which form the basis of the finding of misconduct,” she said.
She added that Lingam did not challenge those points.
Original vs downloaded video clip
Lingam's lawyer R Thayalan earlier argued in the court over the admissibility of a video clip that was used to prove misconduct against his client.
He said the original video recordings were not produced before the disciplinary committee or to the disciplinary board, instead a downloaded copy was produced.
In the court's decision, Justice Maimun said it was mandatory for the disciplinary board to comply with the requirements of the amended section 103D(1) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) 1974 which required it to state its reasons for rejecting the disciplinary committee's recommendation to impose a lesser punishment on Lingam.
“However, we are unable to agree with the appellant (Lingam) how this failure to comply with the section renders the disciplinary board order dated Nov 6, 2015, a nullity and that the reasons had to be stated in the order itself,” she said.
She said the court found the disciplinary board had duly given its reasons for its decision and its order to strike Lingam off the roll was not a nullity.
Lingam was struck off the roll as an advocate and solicitor by the disciplinary board on Nov 6, 2015.
On May 22, 2018, the High Court dismissed Lingam's judicial review and upheld the decision of the disciplinary board. He lost his appeal in the Court of Appeal which was dismissed last year.
The allegation against Lingam concerned a video recording made by Loh of a telephone conversation between Lingam with another person who was later determined to be the then Chief Judge of Malaya Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim.
A Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) was held in 2008 as a result of the release of the video clip and the five-member RCI panel held that the video was authentic.
Besides the allegation of judicial appointment fixing, Lingam was sentenced to six months in jail for contempt, in absentia, in November 2017 for claiming a Federal Court judge had plagiarised its written grounds in delivering a judgment in a civil case.
- Bernama
Report this comment
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.