KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 2 — Policy cases should not be decided through the courts but best left to politicians, said retired Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof.

“Let me say this generally; there are certain things or certain areas of life which could not be satisfactorily decided through the legal method, where the element of policy is very high.

“No judge can get it 100 per cent correct. You cannot satisfy everyone so there would always be continued discussion after the event,” he said in a media interview at his legal firm in Jalan Medan Tunku here, today.

He was responding to a question relating to the Catholic Church’s weekly publication, Herald, which was denied leave by the Federal Court to appeal against the Home Ministry’s order prohibiting it from using the word ‘Allah’.

Hence, he said, judges must tread carefully in deciding such cases, to ensure they do not stray beyond the narrow confines of the case or the law.

When asked on whether the Federal Court should have granted leave to appeal to the church, Ariff, who retired last Jan 21 after turning 66, reserved his comments, saying it was not proper for a former judge to condemn the judiciary.

He said a former judge must be mindful that he or she had served in the judiciary and should not diminish its integrity.

Among the high profile cases that Ariff had a hand in deciding, was the appeal against the ‘open verdict’ ruling by the Coroner’s Court in the inquest into the death of a DAP political aide Teoh Beng Hock.

In that appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the open verdict decision of the coroner’s court.

Ariff was also in the panel, in the sedition case involving Seri Setia assemblyman Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, which declared in a landmark decision that Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012 was unconstitutional.

The panel made clear that under the PAA, the authorities did not have the power to declare any peaceful assembly as illegal, or compel the public to get their consent or a licence prior to staging a peaceful assembly.

The former judge had also decided on the case of Puchong member of Parliament Gobind Singh Deo who was suspended by the Dewan Rakyat in 2009 for 12 months without remuneration, allegedly for insulting the deputy speaker.

On his retirement, Ariff said he intended to go back to legal practice, probably as a consultant, as well as do some arbitration cases.

He said there was no law or rule to say that former judges could not go back to legal practice. Ariff was a practising lawyer from 1986 until Sept 2008 before being appointed as judicial commissioner.

Meanwhile, Ariff described a judge’s life as “very stressful and a job which demands a lot of time to the extent that you don’t have much time for family and friends. You have to watch where you go and what you do.

“You are a prisoner in that sense, in your chambers. You can go crazy if you don’t manage your time and yourself well especially at the High Court,” he said, adding that judges’ salary should be increased because of the nature of the job.

Now that he is retired, Ariff said he would spend more time with his family and friends, adding that he would cherish the freedom.

He is also pleased with his judgements on commercial law and arbitration, saying, there were certain legal positions on commercial law which he had assisted to clarify.

Ariff said it was vital for the Malaysian judiciary to provide sound commercial decisions because people from other countries read the judgements it delivered on commercial cases and this could attract foreign investors.

“The country’s economic growth is also dependent on the state of the country’s law.

“Outsiders would come to Malaysia not just because we have good roads, good drains, tall buildings; they would also look at the law, the court’s decision, the integrity of judges’ decisions,” he said.

In this regard, he said the judiciary must appoint the right people, with practical experience in dealing with commercial matters.

Ariff also said judges should be given more time to sit down and write quality judgements.

On the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case where the Federal Court had sentenced two former police commandos to death for the Mongolian woman’s murder, he said in criminal law, motive was not a necessary ingredient to prove murder.

But it would have evidential value, as every crime normally has a motive with the exception of that done by an insane man, he said. — Bernama