CJ: Don’t stinge on punishment
By Terence Fernandez and Hemananthani Sivanandam, The Sun
PUTRAJAYA (Feb 22, 2011): Judges have been asked to mete out the maximum punishment when it comes to certain crimes.
Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi said apart from street crimes, the Bench has also been reminded of anti-corruption efforts and have asked judges and magistrates to be generous when handing down sentences for these offences.
Judges have been told to take into account the public interest and ensure that perpetrators, once found guilty are handed the stiffest sentences.
“I keep reminding them of their responsibilities. The government is very concerned about street crimes and has established the NKRA (National Key Results Areas) and have provided more judges to hear corruption cases,” Zaki told theSun in a recent interview.
He stressed that he had never asked judges and magistrates to convict someone who did not deserve to be convicted, but asked that the punishment not only fit the crime but was also a deterrent.
“Once they are found guilty, in appropriate cases, don’t be so kedekut (stingy) with the sentencing, otherwise the public will come after us.
“(For example) that fellow ran away with RM2 million but he was fined only RM400,000. The public will come after the courts also,” Zaki said.
Recent notable cases where harsh sentences were imposed include:
* Perak Syariah Court judge Hassan Basri Markum sentenced to a total of 19 years jail and fined RM210,000 for seven corruption charges amounting to RM40,000 by the Ipoh Sessions Court.
* Former assistant district officer of Perai Utara Mohd Jamil Mohd Noor was sentenced by the Perai Sessions Court to six years jail and fined RM300,000 for soliciting a RM60,000 bribe.
* Former senior immigration officer Yusof Abu Bakar sentenced to a total of 56 years jail and fined RM620,000 by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for 14 counts of corruption amounting to RM60,000.
Zaki was quick to add that magistrates and judges were free to make their judgments without any interference.
“I don’t interfere with decisions. If you’re not happy, you appeal. You can ask all my judges, I never direct anybody to make a decision in respect of any particular case.
“I only give general comments if the sentencing is not sufficient,” he said.
He said judges must always be sensitive to the fact that their decisions must also be designed for the greater public good, and as judges they could only decide on the facts before them.
