(CJFE/IFEX) – On 17 May 1999, the Malaysian Court of Appeals began hearing the appeal of the convictions against Canadian journalist Murray Hiebert. The judges hearing the case are Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Lamin Yunus, Datuk Ahmad Rairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Denis Ong. Hiebert’s bail has been set at RM250,000 (approx. US$65,790). […]
(CJFE/IFEX) – On 17 May 1999, the Malaysian Court of Appeals began hearing
the appeal of the convictions against Canadian journalist Murray Hiebert.
The judges hearing the case are Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Lamin
Yunus, Datuk Ahmad Rairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Denis Ong. Hiebert’s bail
has been set at RM250,000 (approx. US$65,790). His lawyers presented
preliminary motions and the hearing is scheduled to continue on 25 and 26
May.
**Updates IFEX alerts of 3 October and 5 September 1997**
Hiebert was found guilty on 30 May 1997 and later sentenced on 4 September
1997 to three months in jail because of a 23 January 1997 story he had
written which examined details of a civil suit brought by Datin Chandra Sri
Ram, the wife of Appeals Court Judge Sri Ram Gopal. The article, which
appeared in the “Far Eastern Economic Review”, also examined the apparent
increase in litigation in Malaysia, noting that the suit by Chandra appeared
to move through the judicial system with unusual speed. Chandra consequently
brought a suit against Hiebert, alleging contempt of the Malaysian judicial
system (see IFEX alerts). At the time, Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF) noted
that it had been the first time since 1949 that a journalist in Malaysia had
been sentenced to a jail term for contempt of court.
In October 1997, Hiebert had his request for the return of his passport
refused pending an appeal of his conviction for contempt of court.
Hiebert’s conviction for contempt was based on his authorship of an article
entitled “See You in Court” published in the “Far Eastern Economic Review”,
dated 23 January 1997. The court decided that the article read as a whole
scandalised the court, was calculated to excite prejudice against the
plaintiff and was designed to exert pressure on the court.
According to CJFE’s information, scandalising the court is no longer a type
of contempt in Britain and nobody has been jailed in Britain for
scandalising the court since the year 1900.
In agreement with the defendant’s wishes, CJFE is requesting that no appeals
be sent at this time.
