DAP chairperson and senior counsel Karpal Singh today said that he intends to bring up in Parliament the conduct of a judge whom he claims was being unprofessional in taking to task one of his (Karpal’s) junior lawyers.

In a statement released in Kuala Lumpur, the Bukit Gelugor parliamentarian said the judge’s remarks to his lawyer ‘gives the perception of judicial impropriety and lack of judicial temperament which is the hallmark expected of a judge’.

karpal singh ‘If this matter is not resolved as I have suggested (an apology), I propose to invoke the provisions of Article 127 of Federal Constitution at the sitting of Parliament commencing April 28,’ said Karpal ( pix ) in his statement.

Article 127 states that the conduct of a judge can be discussed in either House of Parliament after a substantive motion of which notice has been given by not less than one quarter of the total number of members of that house.

The clash between Karpal and High Court judge Mohamed Apandi Ali originated during a March 5 appeal hearing for a rape conviction before Apandi. Karpal’s son was supposed to have handled the matter but was unable to be present.

Karpal’s law firm, Karpal & Co, then assigned junior lawyer S Ranee for the hearing. The court claims Ranee arrived late and without written submissions.

Judge disagrees

A press report the next day headlined ‘Judge takes tardy defence counsel to task’ said that Apandi had ‘let it rip’, was ‘agitated’ and was ‘tearing into defence counsel’.

‘Let the public know that delays in court cases are most of the time caused by the counsel. I am very disappointed with Karpal & Co. Please pass the message that no matter how senior you are, the court does not wait for the counsel,’ Apandi was reported to have said.

Karpal said Apandi’s remarks were unbecoming of a judge.

‘I am of the view that what transpired in court ought not to have occurred. Whatever the failings of counsel, he or she, should not be humiliated in open court. If, in extreme cases, counsel requires to be chastised, it should be done in chambers,’ said the veteran lawyer in a letter to Apandi on March 21.

In his reply to Karpal’s letter, Apandi said he disagreed with portions of the New Straits Times report and that he had no intention of humiliating anyone. A newspaper report was not the same as the Hansard in parliament, he added.

This, however, was rejected by Karpal in another letter on April 7.

‘I am writing to Yang Arif to enquire whether Yang Arif is prepared to withdraw, retract and apologise for the harm done to me, Ms Ranee and my firm by writing to the New Straits Times to publish the said withdrawal, retraction and apology."

‘If this matter is not resolved as I have suggested, I propose to invoke the provisions of Article 127 of Federal Constitution at the sitting of Parliament commencing April 28,’ said Karpal’s letter.