In my opinion, if you think that the law fraternity is all about black and white, I think you should give it a re-think. IMHO, its more like how you can skew an argument to your favour EVEN if evidence says otherwise.
Take for example this posting about a lawyer who subsequently found out that his bundle of document evidence that was used for a trial was different from what was being used by the judge. Apparently, the persecutor had inadvertently handed the defence attorney a copy of evidence that was not even introduced in court.
So how do you interpret it?
a. In matters where people get persecuted and incarcerated, a document that is introduced as affidavit can be wantonly dismissed as 'Opps! I forgot, your Honour!'
b. Your bundle differs from mine because I do not want you to see this!
c. Your bundle is different, but nevermind, the Judge did not even use that affidavit to reach his judgement.
d. You are too very sensitive to think that the persecutor hid the facts...its you that's misreading the whole thing.
I am not a lawyer but certainly (especially in recent weeks) can tell that lawyers are in the business of making their arguments heard and in that process, sway the fence sitters to support their argument.
But what happens when a lawyer goes up against the Attorney general chambers?? This is a whole different kettle of fish!
_________________________________________________________________________________
Ever heard that before? Lying lawyers on the stand? Just how many people will actually be able to understand the repercussions of that?
We get the doses of court drama only from TV, and when it happens in court, the blame squarely lies on the 'wayward judiciary system'....but WAIT!
I am not talking about Malaysian law!
In the case of lawyers and cases in court, if indeed one has taken steps to hide certain facts from being revealed, then that officer of the court would have committed serious perjury and can be disbarred and even jailed.
Though we see it in movies, do we often come across this? The lack of it does not seem to show that it does not happen, so when this case was brought up in Singapore, a lawyer raised a red flag concerning his client when 'certain' facts were hidden.
In this particular case, a defending lawyer had noted that certain evidence was apparently corroborated and deduced from a certain police report made, and as a result affected the ability of his client to be defended without prejudice.
He subsequently queried the afidavits made by the DPP, which resulted in the Attorney General's Office complain to the BAR requesting this particular lawyer to be disbarred!
My, this is going to be interesting.
Take note of the language used......
All will be revealed in good time!
No comments:
Post a Comment