GUIDANCE in the definition of “bias” set forth in Sussex Justices was accepted widely in Commonwealth jurisdictions and beyond.

In Malaysia, for example it was evident in Metramac Corp v Fawziah Holdings.

In fact, in Malaysia, the test has been made easier and the scope widened via decisions such as the Malaysian Bar v Arifin Zakaria, and MPPP v Syarikat BSS Gelugor. 

This “objective” test, or if a “regular person” thought something was biased was further made stringent in the UK case of Porter v Magill, which was in line with the UK’s adherence to European law via the Strasbourg Convention.

This case enhanced the standard to that of “a fair and well-informed person”. Although generally Strasbourg laws do not always apply to Malaysia – in issues on human rights, the death penalty, refugees etc – the Malaysian judiciary chose to adopt this modified standard.

To put this in perspective, although many of our other legal rights-related standards aren’t on par with European Conventions, our definition of bias in judicial decisions is. 

That leaves the question of execution of the law. 

Apart from common law itself, we inherited many customs from the UK, such as respect of the bench for senior counsels (in the absence of king’s counsels).

Thus, while the leeway granted to the senior lawyers handling the former PM’s case may be everyday business for those familiar with court, but to the average person it may seem like bias, especially compared to cases we hear on petty theft and sentencing involving junior lawyers.

Sentences meted out should also be executed in a way that demonstrates such impartiality.

While certain accommodation is to be expected when VIP prisoners are jailed, it should reflect the severity of the crime as much as the status of the person. 

While no one really expects former ministers and title-holders to sleep on concrete floors and answer the call of nature in porcelain squat-toilets in full view of other inmates, their lodging should not be one they would find comfortable vis-à-vis their regular standards, either.

For example, books, some television time, newspapers and padded bedding are acceptable concessions, while flat-screens, orthopaedic chairs and fresh flower decorations are probably over the top.

To deny the accusation they receive any special treatment is quite unbelievable. 

What is needed is transparency in these matters.

While the health of inmates and their right to healthcare is important, the choice of healthcare provider, preferred medicines and accommodation are also luxuries that are removed, together with their freedom. 

What these offenders, their families and supporters need to concede is that a court of law has found them guilty.

The punishment is in the form of a regimented lifestyle for whatever prescribed period.

The removal from society itself is only to remove the threat of continued damage to society, and to give the offender time to reflect.

It is only part of the punishment itself, in the hope the guilty party will reform. 

They no longer should have freedom. This includes the preferences and privileges of ordinary citizens, which ceases to exist upon incarceration, from the type of coffee you prefer, to a certain expensive medicine (if a competent doctor believes it isn’t necessary) 

That being said, a person should be allowed dignity in life while imprisoned. While things like coffee or clothes seem trivial to the average observer, it is critical to maintain social structure.

If the lines of sanction over misbehaviour are blurred and removed, then penal discipline – a cornerstone of a functioning legal-democratic society – can collapse. 

These rights of due process and subsequent punishment or acquittal, that come to light every time a VIP goes through the system, should be accorded to all, just as justice should be, at least as best it can.

That includes the pursuit of “justice” for the offender and the justice system itself. – September 21, 2022.

* Emmanuel Joseph firmly believes that Klang is the best place on Earth, and that motivated people can do far more good than any leader with motive.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.