Share |

Thursday, 15 March 2012

Group: Court should have been merciful to shoe-throwing imam


by TAN YI LIANG

PETALING JAYA: The Federal Court panel which sentenced imam Hoslan Husin to a year’s jail for throwing his shoes at them should have been tempered by mercy.

Lawyers for Liberty campaign director Fadiah Nadwa Fikri told theSun yesterday that the sentence handed down on the 46-year-old father of seven was excessive and unnecessary. 

“We feel the sentence is disproportionate, considering that the imam was emotional on the day of the offence as his appeal was thrown out based on a technicality,” she said, adding that the court failed to consider Hoslan’s apology for his emotional outburst.

She said that previous contempt sentences have only been for a few days jail, saying that the court should 
have been proportionate in the punishment meted down.

“A year is outrageous. Nobody condones throwing a shoe at a judge, but the power of the court cannot be exercised in an extreme manner. 

“In this case they could have just reprimanded him,” said Fadiah.

Hoslan was sentenced to a year in jail on March 8 for contempt of court by a panel comprising Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Federal Court Justices Datuk Suryadi Halim Omar and Datin Paduka Zaleha Zahari.

Hoslan threw his shoes at this three-member bench on Feb 22 during proceedings between 10.15am and 10.30am after the panel dismissed his application to hear his appeal.

Asked about laws behind contempt of court, Fadiah said the sentencing powers for contempt were very wide and left at the discretion of the judge, who should hand down a sentence at the moment of the offence.

“The power of a judge when it comes to contempt is very wide. They can set any duration they like, it is an incidental power of the court and this is why democratic societies are moving away from relying on this power,” she said.

Fadiah said that courts were moving away from jail sentences for contempt in more democratic   societies and allowing criticism of the judiciary.

No comments: