PUTRAJAYA: A Magistrate’s Court has the jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court regardless whether the offence is committed in court or outside, ruled the Court of Appeal.

       In a unanimous decision, a three-man panel chaired by Justice Suraya Othman said the court found no merit in the argument by lawyer Datuk S. Ambiga, who represented former attorney general Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, that a magistrate’s power to punish was limited to contempt in the face of the court alone due to the words used in the provision.

       In Paragraph 26 of the Third Schedule of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948, the words “power to take cognisance of any contempt of court” are used to outline the sentencing for matters of contempt at the Sessions Court and the Magistrate’s Court.

       Ambiga had submitted to the court that the words meant the Magistrate’s Court only had the power to deal with contempt of court in the face of the court and not outside of the court.

       “We are of the view that by definition of the word cognisance, the term cognisance merely means, among others, jurisdiction. It means judicial notice or knowledge,” Justice Suraya said.

       The panel was also of the view that the cases used by the appellant did not support his case.

       “We found no merits in this appeal and hereby dismiss the appeal,” Justice Suraya said in a Zoom proceeding yesterday.

       Two other judges on the panel were Justices Abu Bakar Jais and Hashim Hamzah.

       The Court of Appeal also allowed two other related appeals to be stayed pending the outcome of a leave application to appeal against today’s decision at the Federal Court.

       This is the first appeal brought by the AGC on whether the Coroner’s Court has the jurisdiction to hear and decide on committal proceedings.

       The two other related appeals were brought by Muhammad Adib’s father, Mohd Kassim Abdul Hamid, which included the appeal against a High Court’s decision in setting aside the Coroner’s decision to give him leave to initiate committal proceedings against Thomas.

       Muhammad Adib’s father, Mohd Kassim, 67, filed an ex parte application for a committal order against Thomas for allegedly insulting the court through the filing of an affidavit by the Attorney General’s Chambers on April 3, 2019, which indicated that Adib’s death was not caused by injuries sustained.

       Muhammad Adib, 24, who was attached to the Subang Jaya Fire and Rescue station, was seriously injured in a riot at the Sri Maha Mariamman Temple, USJ 25, on Nov 27, 2018.

       He died on Dec 17, 2018, after 21 days at the National Heart Institute.

       On Sept 27, 2019, the Coroner’s Court ruled that Muhammad Adib’s death was a result of a criminal act by more than two people.

       In 2019, the Shah Alam Coroner’s Court allowed Mohd Kassim to start committal proceedings against Thomas, accusing him of disrespecting the court by filing an affidavit that said Adib’s death was not due to injuries caused by someone.

       Thomas appealed and the High Court dismissed the family’s application to start the contempt proceedings but it upheld a decision that the Coroner’s Court has the power to commence and start contempt proceedings.