Latest news with #remand
ABC News
27-05-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
NSW chief justice releases rare statement of growing number of people on remand
The NSW chief justice has sounded the alarm about the soaring number of people in the state being held on remand. In a rare public statement, Chief Justice Andrew Bell also sought to defend judges' bail decisions amid media scrutiny, saying the court system does its best to balance risk to the community and the interests of those accused. Chief Justice Bell pointed to the latest Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) figures that show there were 5,732 people on remand awaiting trial. "This figure has increased from 5,452 as at 30 March 2024 and from 4,778 five years earlier, that is to say, an increase of approximately 20 per cent over five years," he said. In June last year, the Minns government tightened bail laws for domestic violence offenders after a string of high-profile killings of women by men known to them, meaning those accused of serious domestic violence charges now have to demonstrate why they should be given bail before it is granted. The government also made it harder for young offenders to get bail. The chief justice said the presumption of innocence was a "fundamental plank in our system of justice", and the denial of bail left innocent people at risk of being kept behind bars for "a considerable period of time". "It is not possible to ensure that an accused person held in prison on remand will receive a quick trial, despite the best efforts of all concerned," he wrote. "A person charged with a serious offence may have to wait up to three years before their trial comes on for hearing." He said keeping an accused person behind bars was costly for taxpayers, with an annual average cost in 2024 of over $105,000 per person to keep a person in custody, totalling almost $600 million per year spent on prisoners held on remand. Chief Justice Bell said there was also a hefty human toll. "It also carries an irremediable cost to the not insignificant number of accused person held on remand but not subsequently convicted, or if sentenced for a shorter period than he or she has been held on remand," he said. Chief Justice Bell said the Bail Act strives to deal with the "difficult issue" of what to do with those who have been charged but not convicted of an offence. He said while over time it has "significantly restricted the circumstances in which bail may be granted" it does not "mandate the refusal of bail for any person". Supreme Court justices dealt with over 3,100 bail applications last year, while magistrates in the local court system determined almost 40,000 bail applications. The chief justice said while the act allows courts to impose "stringent conditions", he acknowledged there was no "absolute guarantee that the person granted bail will not offend whilst on bail". "To do so involves a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the difficult and complex risk assessment which judges are required to make when hearing and determining bail applications. "While judges' decisions are not immune from criticism, media reporting of decisions to grant bail is sometimes not informed by a full understanding or proper appreciation of the evidence before the court on the bail application." He concludes his piece with predecessor Tom Bathurst KC's 2012 quote: "There are a few people as much in touch with the realities faced by victims, accused and convicted as are the judges of the criminal courts. They are in the thick of it every single day". "That remains the case today," Chief Justice Bell said.
Free Malaysia Today
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Court of Appeal must decide on IO's presence at remand hearings, says ex-Bar chief
Former Malaysian Bar president Salim Bashir said a Court of Appeal ruling will bind lower courts and bring clarity to the law. PETALING JAYA : A Court of Appeal decision is crucial to settle the legal uncertainty over whether a magistrate can issue a remand order without the investigating officer being present, a former Malaysian Bar president said. Salim Bashir noted that conflicting High Court rulings have created confusion. 'Regardless of the outcome, a Court of Appeal ruling would bind lower courts and bring clarity to the law,' he told FMT. He said that until the Court of Appeal resolved the matter, the latest High Court ruling had to be followed. Salim, who previously led the Bar Council's criminal law committee, was commenting on a High Court decision last week that quashed a remand order because of the IO's absence, declaring the proceedings unlawful. Justice Jamil Hussin ruled that Section 117(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires strict compliance. He said the provision only allows the investigating officer, and not any other policeman or representative of the investigating officer, to appear at a remand hearing. Jamil said the magistrate at the Jinjang remand centre should have rejected a remand application since the IO was not present. In a High Court ruling last July, Justice Abu Bakar Katar also quashed a remand order after stating that a police sergeant could not stand in for the IO. Both the rulings contradicted a High Court ruling last July by judicial commissioner Kan Weng Hin, who held that a remand order remains valid if another police officer who is knowledgeable about the case appears in the IO's place. Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali said the matter should be heard by an enlarged panel of Court of Appeal judges due to its impact on law enforcement and suspects' rights. 'Magistrates need to question the IO on what was done in the last 24 hours to justify further detention. This is critical to ensure suspects' liberties are protected,' he said. Section 117(1) of the CPC allows police to seek additional detention if investigations cannot be completed within 24 hours. Rafique said if the ruling goes against the prosecution, Parliament could still amend the law. FMT has reached out to Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar for comment.
Free Malaysia Today
16-05-2025
- Free Malaysia Today
Prosecution appeals ruling that IOs must be present at remand hearings
The prosecution wants the Court of Appeal to rule on whether Section 117(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the investigating officer in a case to be personally present at a remand hearing. KUALA LUMPUR : The prosecution is appealing to overturn a High Court ruling handed down last week that held a magistrate could not issue a remand order without the investigating officer (IO) present. Lawyer Collin Arvind Andrew, who had appeared for two suspects in revision proceedings before Justice Jamil Hussin on May 7, said the notice of appeal was filed in the High Court registry today. 'We have also been served a copy,' he told FMT. He said the High Court will have to prepare the appeal records, which include the grounds of judgment, for the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal. Jamil had ruled that Section 117(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires strict compliance. He said the provision requires the IO, and not any other policeman or representative of the investigating officer, to be present at a remand hearing. Jamil said the magistrate at the Jinjang remand centre should have dismissed the application since the IO assigned to the case was not present. The appeal before the Court of Appeal is expected to resolve the legal uncertainty that has arisen due to the presence of two conflicting decisions on the matter in the High Court. Last July, Judicial Commissioner Kan Weng Hin held that a remand order remains valid if another police officer who is knowledgeable about the case appears in the IO's place.
Free Malaysia Today
08-05-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Port manager remanded for allegedly deceiving firm, causing RM1mil losses
The suspect was brought before the magistrates' court in Putrajaya this morning for a remand order. PETALING JAYA : The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has remanded a woman for allegedly deceiving a company shareholder over a dredging project at Bagan Datuk Port in Perak. The magistrates' court in Putrajaya this morning issued a remand order for the suspect, a port manager in her 40s, for four days until May 11. A source from MACC said the woman was arrested at around 6.15pm yesterday when she was at the anti-graft agency's headquarters in Putrajaya to provide her statement. The source added that the suspect is believed to have misled the shareholder regarding the project to claim an inflated amount for the work through another company. 'She is suspected of causing the (shareholder's) company to suffer losses amounting to RM1 million,' the source said. MACC senior director of investigations Zainul Darus confirmed the arrest and said the case is being investigated under Section 18 of the MACC Act 2009.
Free Malaysia Today
08-05-2025
- Free Malaysia Today
Investigating officer's presence required at remand hearing, rules court
The High Court has set aside the remand of two suspects who were being investigated under the Poisons Act 1952 and Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ruling that it was unlawful. KUALA LUMPUR : The High Court here has set aside a magistrate's remand order, holding that the absence of the investigating officer at the hearing rendered the proceedings unlawful. Justice Jamil Hussin said Section 117(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code must be strictly complied with. 'Based on my reading, that provision only provides for the police officer conducting the investigation, and not any other policeman or representative of the investigating officer, to be present (at) a remand proceeding,' he said. In a revision application brought by two suspects, Jamil said the record of remand proceedings presided over by a magistrate at the Jinjang remand centre on Tuesday showed that the investigating officer was absent. 'Instead, a police sergeant major was present in the place of the investigating officer, Megat Nazmi Megat Aziz,' he said in the decision made yesterday evening. The suspects were being investigated under Section 30(3) of the Poisons Act 1952 and Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. On that basis, Jamil said, the magistrate should have dismissed the remand application. 'As such, the remand order to detain them for two days is also unlawful,' he said. The judge also dismissed the prosecution's submission that the revision application had become academic as the two suspects had been charged in court. 'This revision was filed on Tuesday, the same day as the remand was granted, when the two suspects were still under the remand. Therefore, it is not academic,' Jamil said. In any case, the judge ruled that the High Court was empowered to determine the validity of the detention under the provision. Lawyer Collin Arvind Andrew had submitted that Section 117(1) should be given a strict and literal interpretation, as the provision seeks to deprive a person of his or her liberty. 'The term 'police officer making the investigation' in Section 117(1) must refer to the investigating officer and no one else,' said Collin, who was assisted by Shahlini Sree Kumar and Ernie Sulastri. Deputy public prosecutor Khalijah Khalid however argued that any other representative of the police officer could stand in, provided that he or she had knowledge of the case. A substitute officer should be allowed to stand in for an investigating officer who is indisposed, said Khalijah who was assisted by deputy public prosecutor Noor Dayana Mohamad.
