PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court here today vacated the hearing of the prosecution’s review application challenging the top court’s earlier 2-1 majority ruling that it (the Federal Court) has the jurisdiction to review death sentences that had been imposed on four prisoners whose sentences have been commuted by the Pardons Boards.
Lawyer Datuk N.Sivananthan, representing two of the four prisoners, told the media that the hearing did not proceed today to allow the parties to explore the possibility of applying the Federal Court’s ruling to 123 other prisoners who are in the same situation as the four.
He said a case management has been fixed for June 3 for parties to update the court on any development.
On Aug 27, last year, the Federal Court ruled in a split decision that it had the jurisdiction under the Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of The Federal Court) Act 2023 (Act 847), to review the death sentences that were imposed on the four for drug trafficking offences.
The majority decision, made by Justices Tan Sri Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal and Datuk Hanipah Farikullah, held that the 30-year prison sentences imposed on the four prisoners should take effect from the date of their arrest, and not from the date their pardons were granted. Justice Datuk Nordin Hassan dissented.
Following this, the prosecution filed a review application under Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995, contending that the judges who decided the majority ruling had acted beyond their jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, lawyer Abdul Rashid Ismail, representing Zambian national Mailesi Phiri, told the media that the jail terms of 123 other prisoners were calculated from the date of their respective Pardons Board’s clemency decision, rather than from the date of their arrest.
“This means that the time they spent in custody prior to the granting of the pardon has not been taken into account, resulting in longer prison terms beyond the 30-year jail term set under Section 39B (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952,” he explained.
The Federal Court had in August last year allowed the four individuals – G. Jiva, 55; P. Balakrishnan, 48; Thai national Phrueksa Thaemchim, 41; and Phiri, 47 – to commence their 30-year jail terms from the date of their arrest.
Sivananthan is representing Jiva and Balakrishnan, while lawyer K. Simon Murali is representing Phrueksa. Deputy Public Prosecutors Datin Asmah Musa, Tetralina Ahmed Fauzi, Ng Siew Wee, and Solehah Noratikah Ismail are appearing for the prosecution.
