Federal Court’s Decision Challenged: Prosecution Seeks Review
The prosecution has applied to the Federal Court to review a previous ruling that allowed the court to review decisions made by a pardons board regarding the commencement date of commuted jail terms.
Background
On August 27, 2024, the Federal Court ruled that it had jurisdiction under the Revision of the Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023 to review decisions made by a pardons board as to when a commuted jail term should commence. The court ordered that the commuted 30-year jail terms of convicted drug traffickers G Jiva and P Balakrishnan should run from the date of their arrests, rather than the date of their pardon.
Protestation’s Argument
The prosecution argues that the Federal Court’s decision is inconsistent with the powers accorded to it under the 2023 law. In an affidavit filed in support of the application, deputy public prosecutor Tetralina Ahmed Fauzi stated that convicts handed mandatory death sentences should only be allowed to turn to the apex court if their clemency applications are rejected by the pardons board. She also emphasized that the power to pardon convicts is governed by Article 42 of the Federal Constitution and cannot be challenged in a court of law as it is a royal prerogative power.
Lawyer’s Perspective
Lawyer N Sivananthan, who represented the duo, argued that the spirit of the parliamentary debates held over the legislation suggested that it was intended to cover both those who were granted clemency and those who were not. He also highlighted that another 70 convicts in a similar predicament have applied for the apex court for a review of their cases, but all have been put on hold.
Consequences
The Federal Court’s decision has significant consequences for the convicts involved, with Jiva, 54, being ordered to serve only three years behind bars before he could be freed, and Balakrishnan, 47, being allowed to go free as soon as he received 12 strokes of the rotan.
Conclusion
The prosecution’s application to review the Federal Court’s decision highlights the complexity of the issue at hand. The court’s decision has far-reaching consequences for the convicts involved, and it remains to be seen how the prosecution’s application will be resolved.
FAQs
Q: What is the Revision of the Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023?
A: The act grants the Federal Court temporary jurisdiction to review decisions made by a pardons board regarding the commencement date of commuted jail terms.
Q: Why did the prosecution challenge the Federal Court’s decision?
A: The prosecution argues that the court’s decision is inconsistent with the powers accorded to it under the 2023 law and that the power to pardon convicts is governed by Article 42 of the Federal Constitution and cannot be challenged in a court of law.
Q: What are the consequences of the Federal Court’s decision?
A: The decision has significant consequences for the convicts involved, including Jiva and Balakrishnan, who were ordered to serve only three years and 12 years behind bars, respectively, before they could be freed.