Loh Siew Hong's children remain Hindus as Federal Court shuts down Perlis govt's last attempt to validate conversion
A three-member panel chaired by Chief Judge of Malaya Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim delivered the unanimous decision alongside Federal Court judges Datuk Nordin Hassan and Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera.
Today's decision follows an application filed by the Perlis state government last year to review its decision denying them leave to appeal the appellate court's ruling on the conversion of Loh's three children to Islam without her consent.
The latest ruling effectively endorsed an earlier Federal Court decision which had in May 2024 unanimously decided against the Perlis Islamic Religious and Malay Customs Council (MAIPs), the Perlis government, and other respondents in the years-long legal battle to have the children's conversion to Islam declared unconstitutional.
'We find no merit in the review application as the applicant has not met the threshold under Rule 137 of Rules of the Federal Court 1995.
'Therefore Enclosure 1 (application for review) is dismissed with no cost,' she said.
Loh previously challenged the children's conversion in 2022, losing initially at the High Court but later winning at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.
On May 14, 2024, the Federal Court reaffirmed the binding Indira Gandhi precedent requiring both parents' consent for child conversions.
The Perlis state government then filed an application on October 29, 2024 to review the Federal Court's decision.
In its application, it is seeking a review by a new panel, claiming its right to be heard was 'severely compromised'.
It wants the Federal Court's May 2024 panel — chaired by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat — decision for refusal to be set aside and the leave application reheard, or for leave to appeal to be granted directly.
Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 recognises the Federal Court's inherent power to review its previous decisions in order to prevent an injustice or an abuse of process, and it has been mostly used to set aside Federal Court's decisions.
Ultimately, Perlis wants the Federal Court to hear its full appeal to argue the conversion should be declared valid.
In May 2024, the Federal Court said the Court of Appeal's decision to invalidate the three children's conversion was correct, noting Perlis' arguments would encourage the 'unconstitutional practice of unilateral conversion to persist'.
In short, this means the children remain Hindus and the unilateral conversion illegal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
6 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Trump DOJ Asks Judge to Dismiss Harvard Foreign Student Suit
The Trump administration asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit filed by Harvard University over a proposed ban on international students, saying the president has the broad authority to issue rules restricting the entry of non-citizens into the country.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Justice Department and FBI sued for access to records on Jeffrey Epstein probe
An advocacy group has sued the Justice Department and the FBI for records detailing their handling of the sex-trafficking investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The legal organisation Democracy Forward is seeking records related to senior administration officials' communication about Epstein documents and any regarding correspondence between Epstein and President Donald Trump. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, appears to the be first of its kind. The group says it submitted requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the records related to communications about the case in late July that have not yet been fulfilled. 'The court should intervene urgently to ensure the public has access to the information they need about this extraordinary situation,' said Skye Perryman, the president and chief executive of the Democratic-aligned group. The federal government often shields records related to criminal investigations from public view. Democracy Forward has filed dozens of lawsuits against Mr Trump's Republican administration, challenging a range of policies and the president's executive orders. The case has been subject to heightened public focus since the Justice Department said last month it would not release additional documents from the case. The decision sparked frustration and anger among online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Mr Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. The Trump administration has sought to unseal grand jury transcripts, though that has been denied by a judge in Florida. US District Judge Robin Rosenberg said the request to release grand jury documents from 2005 and 2007 did not meet any of the exceptions under federal law that could make them public. A similar request for the work of a different grand jury is pending in New York. The House Oversight Committee has also subpoenaed the Justice Department for files on the investigation, part of a congressional probe that legislators believe may show links to Mr Trump and other former top officials. Since Epstein's 2019 death in a New York jail cell as he awaited trial on sex-trafficking charges, conservative conspiracists have stoked theories about what information investigators gathered on Epstein and who else knew about his sexual abuse of teenage girls. Mr Trump has denied prior knowledge of Epstein's crimes and claimed he cut off their relationship long ago, and he has repeatedly tried to move past the Justice Department's decision not to release a full accounting of the investigation, but legislators from both major political parties have refused to let it go.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Funding crisis' means private attorneys who take federal public defense cases won't be paid for months
SPRINGFIELD — As the state grapples with a work stoppage over pay for private attorneys who represent indigent defendants, the system that ensures representation for those in federal court is also in crisis. The program that pays private attorneys to represent those who can't afford a lawyer in federal court ran out of money last month and won't be able to pay lawyers until the new federal fiscal year in October, according to a statement from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. 'Not only are lawyers not getting paid, but the investigators and experts we use won't get paid either,' said Peter Alexander Slepchuk, a Springfield lawyer who is on the panel of private attorneys who takes the cases. 'It does create a problem.' Across the country, about 40% of indigent people in federal court are represented by private attorneys who are part of a court district's Criminal Justice Act Panel, according the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The rest of the low-income defendants are represented by staff from federal public defender offices that employ lawyers full time, similar to the Committee for Public Counsel in Massachusetts. The courts ran out of money to pay the private attorneys for cases in July. 'The continuing resolution to fund the government for fiscal year 2025 passed by Congress in March froze all Judicial Branch funding at the FY 2024 level, which resulted in panel attorney funding running out unusually early,' the administrative court office said in a statement. 'CJA lawyers are performing constitutionally required legal work on behalf of defendants,' said Daniel Cloherty, a Boston attorney who is chair of the District of Massachusetts CJA panel. 'They are critical to the operation of the system and they are no longer getting paid for their work,' Cloherty said. 'Many of them, not all but many, are in small firms or solo practitioners. They are small businesses that are being forced to go through a pause in payments.' Lawyers are still continuing to take cases, Cloherty said. 'My concern is that it will become increasingly difficult to attract lawyers to do this work if this becomes a persistent problem.' The funding pause impacts the attorneys, and also people like translators and experts paid by the court for an indigent defendant's case, Cloherty said. 'Lawyers are in a position of trying to hire vendors to assist them in the cases but I can't tell them when they are going to get paid,' he said. 'That can be a challenge.' There's been funding issues in the past, but this is a particularly long period, the U.S. Courts statement said. 'Payments to panel attorneys have been suspended during previous congressional budget crises, but rarely for more than a few weeks in a single fiscal year,' the statement said. While Slepchuk takes federal cases as a panel member, his law practice is diverse and he does not rely on them. He said he knows other attorneys, however, who do depend on the cases. 'I know it's a pressing problem for them,' he said. Some attorneys are not taking cases because they don't want to 'essentially give the government an interest free loan for however many months,' Slepchuk said. Read the original article on MassLive. Solve the daily Crossword
