KUALA LUMPUR: Two lawyers and their client, who were found guilty of contempt by the Court of Appeal for filing false evidence, will receive their sentence next month.
Sessions Court judge Halilah Suboh fixed April 2 for sentencing.
The case involves lawyers Mark Robin Tallala and G. Mahadeva, as well as their client Jagmohan Singh Sandhu.
In October last year, a three-member bench led by Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera found the trio guilty of filing a false witness statement for Allen David Martinez without approval at the Sessions Court four years ago.
Other members of the bench were Datuk Seri Mariana Yahya and Datuk Azimah Omar.
Then, the court said they disagreed with the lower court's finding that the filing of the impugned witness statement was merely a "mistake".
"The impugned document was knowingly filed notwithstanding the full knowledge that the solicitors have not communicated, consulted, nor have met Martinez," the court said in its judgment.
"The solicitors knew they had not obtained proper confirmation from the intended witness and yet they found it acceptable to ignore the absence of personal confirmation.
"Instead, the solicitors felt it was appropriate to just rely on the instructions and confirmation of their client."
The false evidence came to light after Martinez filed an affidavit in 2020 denying every answer in the impugned witness statement.
He also said he did not communicate nor meet the lawyers before the filing of the impugned document.
Tallala and Mahadeva later admitted to having never met or sought Martinez personal confirmation before the filing of the impugned witness statement.
They blamed Jagmohan and said they relied solely on their client's instruction and the supposition that the latter had finalised the contents of the impugned witness statement with Martinez.
The court said lawyers cannot entrust their client with the responsibility of obtaining confirmation from witnesses.
It said this showed the lawyer's conduct went beyond a "mistake" and encroached on the realm of inconsiderate presumptions and dishonesty.
"It is not the contents nor the veracity of the contents of the impugned document that irritates and offended the face of the Court, but it was the callous conduct of the solicitors in filing the impugned witness statement that accords contempt of court."
The court said even though the impugned witness statement would not be admissible as evidence as it was unsigned, it still did not erase the solicitors' contemptuous conduct of improperly filing the document.
"There has never been a rule or precedent that contempt follows the event or outcome of the main litigation nor should there ever be such a rule of law.
"Contempt remains contempt no matter how meritorious the case of the contemnor (or contemnor's client) would be.
"Whether the witness statement was later signed and admitted before the court is distinctly a separate matter."
The court said lawyers should not put their own words or narratives into the mouth of a witness, and that this was a "basic rule of law and ethics".
The court has ordered the case to be remitted back to the Sessions Court for contempt proceedings to proceed.
In today's proceedings at the Sessions Court, lawyer Datuk Harpal Singh Grewal who appeared for Tallala and Mahadeva said any custodial sentence against his clients would have very serious consequences for their future.
"This is an extensive mistake for the solicitors to learn. Tallala comes from a very respectable family and has been in practice for 21 years, while Mahadeva was just assisting his senior and was not very instrumental in filing the affidavit.
"This is the first time in my career that I have come across a case where an unsigned witness statement can be the subject of contempt.
"The impugned witness statement was never utilised by both parties and the defendant in the trial was not prejudiced by the unsigned witness statement," he said in his mitigation.
Jagmohan's lawyer Ratni Jebaratham said her client was just a layman who did not understand the court's procedure for filing evidence.
"Even though my client has a law degree, he never practices and only provides consultation services," she said.
However, Bhavanash Sharma, the petitioner in the case, argued for a deterrent sentence, citing the contemnors' dishonesty and deceitfulness towards the court.
"They have never issued an apology and fought this case until the Court of Appeal. This is not just a mistake; it is fraud in the court," said Bhavanash, who was assisted by Chetna Brijmohan
"A custodial sentence must be imposed so that it will not be a mockery of the appellate court's decision," he said.
