High Courts acquits two men of murder charge
JOHOR BARU: Two men, including a local sales assistant, have been acquitted by the High Court in a murder case dating back six years, escaping the death penalty.
Jaya Kandan Madachamy, 47, and Rathis Thas Ganapakiyam, 42, walked free without having their defence called. Rathis is a Sri Lankan national.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
16 hours ago
- The Star
High Courts acquits two men of murder charge
Lawyers Datin Freda Sabapathy (left) and Sarawana Kumar together with the accused local Jaya Kandan Madachamy,47, (second left) and Sri Lankan Rathis Thas Ganapakiyam, 42. JOHOR BARU: Two men, including a local sales assistant, have been acquitted by the High Court in a murder case dating back six years, escaping the death penalty. Jaya Kandan Madachamy, 47, and Rathis Thas Ganapakiyam, 42, walked free without having their defence called. Rathis is a Sri Lankan national.
The Star
17 hours ago
- The Star
What is judicial mercy, and how does it apply to Ong Beng Seng's case?
Both the defence and the prosecution noted that a fine in lieu of jail would be appropriate as Ong Beng Seng has advanced multiple myeloma, which is an incurable cancer. - ST/ANN SINGAPORE: Property tycoon Ong Beng Seng pleaded guilty to one count of abetting the obstruction of justice on Aug 4. Both the defence and the prosecution noted that a fine in lieu of jail would be appropriate as he has advanced multiple myeloma, which is an incurable cancer. His lawyers urged the court to exercise judicial mercy and impose a fine with no prison time. The prosecution did not object to this, noting that even if the court did not exercise judicial mercy, there was basis for it to consider Ong's ill-health as a mitigating factor for a significant reduction of sentence. ALSO READ: Singapore-based Malaysian billionaire Ong Beng Seng pleads guilty to abetting obstruction of justice in case linked to ex-minister Iswaran What is judicial mercy? Judicial mercy is the discretionary power of Singapore's courts to give a more lenient sentence because of exceptional mitigating circumstances. It has a high threshold, and so far has been exercised in only two types of situations. The first is where the offender is suffering from terminal illness. The second is where the offender is so ill that jail time would carry a high risk of endangering his or her life. The High Court previously said that when judicial mercy is exercised, the central consideration by the court is not the culpability of the offender. Instead, the sentence will be based on humanitarian considerations. These must outweigh public interests in punishing the offender for his crime. This is distinctly different from when ill-health is considered as a mitigating factor. The High Court said judicial mercy is to be invoked only sparingly. Previous cases where it was invoked saw no imprisonment, or a nominal period of imprisonment, or the statutory minimum. Difference between judicial mercy and ill-health as mitigating factor Judicial mercy has a higher threshold than ill-health as a mitigating factor. When judicial mercy is invoked, the main consideration for sentencing becomes one of humanity. When the courts pass sentences with ill-health considered as a mitigating factor, the central consideration is still the public interest in punishing one for the offence committed. The punishment would remain proportional to the offender's culpability, but may be reduced at the discretion of the court. The courts have exercised judicial mercy in cases where the offender has not long left to live or when prison time would pose a significant risk to the offender's life. Cancer-stricken woman In 2020, the court fined a woman S$5,000 (US$3,885) instead of jailing her for a week for contempt of court. The mother of two had breached court orders relating to divorce proceedings with her former husband. She had turned her children on him and harmed his reputation. The court granted judicial mercy, noting that the woman had stage 4 breast cancer, was using a wheelchair and weighed only 30kg. Six months to live In 2018, a man who managed a coffee shop had a three-week prison sentence cut to a S$250 fine after he was diagnosed with cancer and given six months to live. Lam Kim Heng, then 68, had tried to bribe a building inspection officer with a pack of cigarettes. But three weeks after sentencing, he found out he had acute myeloid leukaemia. The High Court granted judicial mercy when it heard his appeal about three months after the diagnosis. Former Tangs chairman's kidney scandal In 2008, then Tangs chairman Tang Wee Sung was jailed for a day and fined S$17,000 for attempting to buy a kidney. He suffered from multiple medical conditions, including end-stage renal disease. Tang had to undergo dialysis six days a week, and had extremely detailed checks, injections and medication daily. The court granted him judicial mercy. Tang underwent a kidney transplant in 2009 and died in 2022. Molester with nose cancer In 2006, a convicted molester was granted judicial mercy on appeal and had his original sentence of four months' jail and three strokes of the cane replaced with a S$5,000 fine. Chng Yew Chin, then 43, had molested his maid. But he appealed and a doctor told the court he could not be cured and had little time left. The court granted him judicial mercy, saying his cancer was a far harsher sentence that would kill him in the near future. - The Straits Times/ANN
The Star
2 days ago
- The Star
Open by default
WHEN the explosion and fire shook a residential area in Putra Heights, Selangor, in early April this year, residents were left not just with anxiety and trauma but also with lingering doubts. Even after the investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Department – which was made public in June – revealed that ground instability was what led to the gas pipeline explosion, and the police subsequently classified the case as 'No Further Action', residents continue to grapple with unresolved questions, calling on the government to provide them with answers. Why did the explosion happen only there? What about the construction of shop lots near the pipeline's location? And why is it so difficult to access such information? Incidents like this reveal a deeper truth that access to information is not just a tool for journalists or watchdogs – it can affect the lives of everyday Malaysians too. This is one reason why advocates say it is important the government keeps its promise to table a Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill in Parliament soon. FOI supporters say the law could empower citizens in ways that extend far beyond politics and media; from holding the government accountable for safety and land use decisions, to improving services through smarter, more transparent data sharing. Changing the mindset Lawyer and former Selangor Bar chairman Kokila Vaani Vadiveloo says a federal FOI law would benefit ordinary citizens seeking information about government activities that directly affect them, including issues of environmental hazards, land use, and healthcare policies. She cites the example of a notable judgment in 2023 involving a High Court order that required the government to release an accident investigation report about a plane crash that killed 11 people almost half a century ago in 1976. 'This case illustrated how families struggled to access information without FOI provisions,' she says. But beyond that, she says it could also help so many segments of society, such as students and researchers wanting to carry out evidence-based analysis, small business owners who may need to investigate regulations and obtain contract information, or legal professionals looking to gain evidence or background for court cases. Kokila says in South Africa, for example, environmental groups and minority shareholders have used FOI laws to obtain critical information on corporate projects affecting their interests. 'FOI is recognised as a consumer right to enable informed choices,' Kokila says. State and culture The Malaysian public has a right to know how the government conducts activities that shape daily lives, stresses senior manager (research) for the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas), Alissa Rode. Because of the lack of an FOI law, she says only seven out of the 13 states and territories published their annual budget estimates online as of 2024. 'Expenditure information should be considered critical information that is proactively disclosed, but failing that, a minimal right to information would enable citizens to obtain this information,' she says. This also shows that it is important for an FOI law to be adopted by all states, not just at the federal level, she adds, as state governments also possess data that is important to the average citizen. Sinar Project coordinator Khairil Yusof points out that two states – Penang and Selangor – already have FOI laws at the state level. From their interactions with the two state governments, he says the implementation of an FOI law creates not only a legal change, but also a change in culture within the government from being the gatekeeper of information to an 'open by default' approach. 'The cultural change is the under-standing that government information and knowledge resources are publicly funded and that they should be freely available and accessible to the public. 'It also creates an enabling environment for government agencies to proactively share public information and data, not just with the public but also between government agencies,' says Khairil. In practice, existing laws and bureau-cracy often hinder this as government officials are prevented from sharing information with the public. There is a provision in the Penal Code, Section 203A, which Khairil describes as being 'very vague', that discourages civil servants from sharing information. Section 203A states that it is a crime for civil servants to disclose any information obtained by them in the performance of their duties under any written law. 'So often, even if the information requested is not secret, it requires a lot of additional work for both parties to share that information. 'For example, the cleanliness of rivers that the officer already had on their computer.' Indirect beneficiary Another main obstacle to information access in Malaysia is the Official Secrets Act (OSA), as Rode points out. The OSA makes all information confidential by default. 'Without an FOI law, a citizen seeking information would commonly get shunted around the bureaucracy looking for a sympathetic and empowered officer, as there is no obligation on the part of public officials to meet the request or even reveal who is responsible for that data. 'Even if the department in question is willing to provide the data, requests are often deprioritised,' she says. Kokila adds that without FOI protections, any whistleblower disclosing public interest information becomes at risk of prosecution and their disclosures often end up being suppressed by secrecy laws. Thus, Rode says, although an FOI law should at minimum mandate passive disclosure – that is, information is provided upon request – countries with the highest standards of transparency would go one step further and embrace active disclosure and an 'open by default' approach to information. 'Ideally, the upcoming FOI law should set up the expectation that critical information is made available online by default. Exceptions can still be made for security and privacy purposes, but such exceptions should be narrowly defined,' she says. Is there hope? Khairil says there are already examples in Malaysia of a more 'open by default' approach to data collected by the government, such as the Health Ministry's Covid-Now dashboard, the Department of Statistics's OpenDOSM portal, and the Public Sector Open Data initiatives. The results of such initiatives have shown that beyond governance and rights issues, an FOI law also immediately paves the way for an open government and unlocks the full value of the work done by the civil service by making public information open by default. 'It enables rapid digital transformation innovations not only for the governments, but for everyone,' says Khairil. But usually, the general public is an indirect beneficiary of access to information, mostly without realising it, he says, providing what he calls a relatable example: Local councils like the Petaling Jaya City Council and the Subang Jaya City Council do spot checks and grade restaurant cleanliness; the rating is displayed on the inspected premises. 'If this dataset were publicly available, then companies like Google, FoodPanda, or Grab could incorporate these grades in their apps.' To drive home the point of how much the people take the indirect benefits of open data for granted, Khairil points to a global example; the GPS system used worldwide is only possible because the United States government made it public. 'Imagine a world where only limited people could have access to GPS navigation.'
