More on the Corby case...

This is the biggest case of toxic poisoning in the UK since thalidomide.
-Danielle Holliday, from Messrs Collins Solicitors, which handled the Corby case.

I found that there are quite a number of other stories celebrating the Corby victory. This story is worth reading as the decision could have far reaching impact.

Here is a run down of some of the stories and the angle they are taking on this issue.

1. UK Telegraph, 30th July 2009: Corby birth defect: Ten-year struggle ends in victory that echoes Erin Brockovich: Draws parellels with Erin Brockovitch and the thalidomide incident.

2. Guardian, 29th July 2009: 'I can't do some of the things other kids are doing. I can't run': Focuses on the tragedy of the deformity suffered by the children and the vindication this judgment brought them.

3. Independent, 29th July 2009: Cuts or rises: toxic claim 'will hit council tax payers': Plays out the council's side of the story, with the council trying to tell members of the public that their taxes will go to compensate the plaintiffs. Quotable quote: "All the evidence suggests it would have been cheaper to settle earlier than to pursue and defend the case. We have run up substantial legal costs. We've run up legal costs so far of £1.9 million - that is money we have already paid and budgeted."

4. New Statesman, 30th July 2009: Landmark ruling in birth defects case: Focuses on the legal aspects of the matter as a "landmark ruling", calling the case "the first case of its kind since the thalidomide scandal".

5. LocalGov, 30th July 2009: Corby lawyers urge rethink after contamination ruling: Tries to show the council's argument that this case could open the floodgates for other similar claims, against other councils carrying out reclamation works. The council's lawyers issued this statement: "This is a significant concern because the standard of care has been drawn very highly, and could cause a rethink of the way that reclamation is carried out in the UK." It sounds like they learned their lesson and have accepted the judgment. Yet they are considering appealing the decision.

Who Is Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah?

Answer: She is an ethnic Chinese from Penang who converted to Islam in 1999 to marry an Iranian. The majority of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia are non-Muslims, although the number of converts are increasing. Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah was originally born Tan Ean Huang, but converted on 25th July 1998 to marry an Iranian named Ferdoun Ashanian.

"It is clear that the plantiff does not practise Islamic teachings since the beginning and the court rules that the plantiff is no longer a Muslim according to Section 61(3)b(x) of the Penang Syariah Court Procedure Enactment 2004."
--Perlis Syariah Chief Judge Othman Ibrahim

The significance is that she is the first living non-Muslim to be allowed by the Syariah Court to revert to her former religion. Her affidavit stated that at no point of time did she practise the religion of Islam. Bernama hailed it as "the first in Malaysia involving a living plaintiff and under syariah court's jurisdiction".

Datin Seri Wan Azizah was reported, saying: "It is her right to return to her original religion." Whereas the learned judge had opined that apostasy can occur in three instances, i.e. action, speech and faith that go against Islamic teachings. He gave the example of worshipping something besides Allah, denying Allah's existence and allowing things forbidden.

Further Reading:

• Bernama, "Syariah Court Declares Siti Fatimah No Longer Muslim" -- 8th May 2008, 5.35pm


• The Star, Zahid: Accept Syariah Court's decision on convert -- 8th May 2008, 7.48pm

An interesting day at court

Today something quite interesting happened while I was at one particular court. The Magistrate was on leave, hence the Registrar was given the duty of hearing the criminal cases.

A friend of mine, Mr. M______, stood up when his case was called.

“Puan, hari ini ditetapkan untuk bicara penuh kes. Pegawai Pendakwaan tidak hadir. Ini adalah kali ke-___ kes ini ditangguh. Saya pohon supaya OKT dibebaskan tanpa dilepaskan. Pegawai Pendakwaan boleh memanggil semula OKT untuk mendakwanya apabila pihak pendakwaan sedia untuk memulakan perbicaraan.”

The Registrar was worried. She didn’t know whether she had the power to give a DNAA order. (DNAA means “Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal”)

My friend continued: “Puan, Puan mempunyai kuasa untuk membebaskan OKT.”

Immediately the burly policeman by the door came by and said in a low voice, “Puan tidak punyai kuasa untuk melepaskan OKT.”

My friend said again, “Puan mempunyai kuasa untuk membebaskan OKT dan berikan DNAA.”

I pulled out my trusty Practitioner’s Edition: Subordinate Court Practice. Turning to the Subordinate Courts Act 1948, Fourth Schedule, it was found that “Senior Registrars and Registrars of the Subordinate Courts” qualify as “Ex Officio Second Class Magistrates”.

The Prosecuting Officer, Mr. K___, hurried by and said, “Puan is a Registrar only, she’s not a first class magistrate but a second class magistrate. Section 88 doesn’t give her that power to DNAA!”

Here is what section 88 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 says:

“A Second Class Magistrate shall only have jurisdiction to try offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law does not exceed twelve months’ imprisonment or which are punishable with fine only:

“Provided that if a Second Class Magistrate is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, if a conviction should result, the powers of punishment which he possesses would be inadequate, he shall take the necessary steps to adjourn the case for trial by a First Class Magistrate.”

Mr. M________, having seen the section, said: “Puan, saya dengan rendah diri pohon supaya tarikh akhir diberikan. Jika Pegawai Pendakwaan masih tidak hadir, saya pohon supaya DNAA diberikan oleh Mahkamah.”

Everyone sighed in relief. Especially the Second Class Magistrate (Registrar) who sat on the bench.