Kota Kinabalu: The High Court here on Tuesday set aside the coroner court’s ruling in connection with all applications to be involved as interested parties in the inquest to determine the cause of death of Form One student Zara Qairina Mahathir.
Judge Datuk Duncan Sikodol made the ruling after hearing arguments from parties during the hearing of revision application against Sabah Court Director Azreena Aziz’s decision to allow the teenagers’ counsels to be interested parties in the inquest proceedings.
The revision application was made by the Sabah Law Society (SLS).
Sikodol said whatever orders made in connection with any applications in the said inquest were set aside and the parties were at liberty to renew their applications before the new coroner and this included the legal team for Zara’s family.
He said in the present case, the learned coroner made an order admitting counsels for the alleged child offenders as interested persons and allowing them to participate in the inquest proceedings.
“Shortly after, she recused herself on the grounds of personal interest in the matter.
“Having already formed the view that she could not continue with the case, it was not proper for her to decide a substantive issue which should rightly have been left to the consideration of the new coroner, as to do so would amount to deciding on behalf of the incoming coroner and undermine the principle of impartiality,” said Sikodol.
The court also disallowed a preliminary objection raised by the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) against SLS.
According to Sikodol, although SLS appeared in the inquest only by way of a watching brief, with its role confined to observing the proceedings and if invited, rendering assistance to the court, Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) empowers the High Court to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before a subordinate court in order to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, and as to the regularity of the proceedings.
“This supervisory jurisdiction may be exercised even on the court’s own motion. In that context, any person may properly bring an issue to the court’s attention for consideration.
“Given the public interest dimension of the matter and the role of SLS as guardian of that interest, I am of the view that locus standi should not prevent them from raising this issue. I therefore disallow the preliminary objection raised by the learned DPP,” he said.
Earlier, the prosecution led by State Prosecution Director Nahra Dollah raised a preliminary objection against SLS’s application by submitting that SLS has no locus standi to file the application to revise the previous coroner’s decision.
Nahra further submitted that the applicant (SLS) in their capacity as a watching brief was merely to watch or observe the inquest proceedings and that the application was an abuse of court’s process.
However, counsel Dominic Ghani, together with Jamadi Saleh and Nabila Norshar, who appeared on behalf of SLS, argued that SLS possessed the locus standi to apply the revision in the matter as the intervention was necessary to uphold the integrity of the inquest process and to ensure to the principles of natural justice.
Judge Datuk Duncan Sikodol made the ruling after hearing arguments from parties during the hearing of revision application against Sabah Court Director Azreena Aziz’s decision to allow the teenagers’ counsels to be interested parties in the inquest proceedings.
The revision application was made by the Sabah Law Society (SLS).
Sikodol said whatever orders made in connection with any applications in the said inquest were set aside and the parties were at liberty to renew their applications before the new coroner and this included the legal team for Zara’s family.
He said in the present case, the learned coroner made an order admitting counsels for the alleged child offenders as interested persons and allowing them to participate in the inquest proceedings.
“Shortly after, she recused herself on the grounds of personal interest in the matter.
“Having already formed the view that she could not continue with the case, it was not proper for her to decide a substantive issue which should rightly have been left to the consideration of the new coroner, as to do so would amount to deciding on behalf of the incoming coroner and undermine the principle of impartiality,” said Sikodol.
The court also disallowed a preliminary objection raised by the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) against SLS.
According to Sikodol, although SLS appeared in the inquest only by way of a watching brief, with its role confined to observing the proceedings and if invited, rendering assistance to the court, Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) empowers the High Court to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before a subordinate court in order to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, and as to the regularity of the proceedings.
“This supervisory jurisdiction may be exercised even on the court’s own motion. In that context, any person may properly bring an issue to the court’s attention for consideration.
“Given the public interest dimension of the matter and the role of SLS as guardian of that interest, I am of the view that locus standi should not prevent them from raising this issue. I therefore disallow the preliminary objection raised by the learned DPP,” he said.
Earlier, the prosecution led by State Prosecution Director Nahra Dollah raised a preliminary objection against SLS’s application by submitting that SLS has no locus standi to file the application to revise the previous coroner’s decision.
Nahra further submitted that the applicant (SLS) in their capacity as a watching brief was merely to watch or observe the inquest proceedings and that the application was an abuse of court’s process.
However, counsel Dominic Ghani, together with Jamadi Saleh and Nabila Norshar, who appeared on behalf of SLS, argued that SLS possessed the locus standi to apply the revision in the matter as the intervention was necessary to uphold the integrity of the inquest process and to ensure to the principles of natural justice.
