The Federal Court will deliver its verdict on whether prisoners granted clemency can seek sentence reviews under a 2023 law, with decision set for November 12.
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has fixed November 12 to deliver its verdict on the prosecution’s bid to overturn a decision allowing clemency-granted prisoners to seek sentence reviews under a 2023 law.
A five-member bench led by Chief Justice Datuk Seri Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh set the decision date after hearing submissions from both prosecution and defence counsels representing three prisoners.
The prosecution argued that prisoners whose death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment through clemency cannot seek further review under the Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life Act 2023.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Seri Saiful Edris Zainuddin contended that Act 847 only applies to prisoners whose death sentences were converted to natural life imprisonment and those whose clemency pleas were rejected.
He argued that extending review rights to clemency-granted prisoners would exceed the Act’s scope and encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of mercy.
The three prisoners – G. Jiva, 55, Thai national Phrueksa Taemchim, 41, and Zambian national Mailesi Phiri, 48 – had received clemency converting their death sentences to 30 years imprisonment from the date of the Pardons Board’s decision.
They subsequently applied to the Federal Court under Act 847 seeking sentence revisions to run from their arrest dates instead.
A Federal Court three-member bench on August 27 last year granted their application in a 2-1 majority ruling that the court had jurisdiction to hear the reviews under Act 847.
The prosecution then filed an application under Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995 to seek leave to review that decision.
Defence lawyers argued that prisoners no longer on death row can seek reviews under Act 847.
Mailesi’s lawyer Abdul Rashid Ismail said excluding pardoned persons would punish those who received mercy while rewarding those who did not.
Jiva’s lawyer Datuk N. Sivananthan submitted his client would be unfairly positioned if required to serve his sentence from the commutation date while others in similar positions had been released.
Phrueksa’s lawyer K. Simon Murali said his client cannot re-apply for review if her application is rejected since Pardon Board decisions cannot be challenged. – Bernama
