Lingam fails in final appeal to return to practice law

PUTRAJAYA - Lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam who was implicated in the fixing of judicial appointment lost his final appeal in the Federal Court to return to practice law.

This followed a decision by a Federal Court three-member panel today in dismissing Lingam's appeal against the decision of the advocates and solicitors disciplinary board in striking him off the Roll of the Malaysian Bar for alleged misconduct relating to a video clip over judicial appointments.

Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who chaired the court panel, held that it was undisputed that the disciplinary committee, the disciplinary board, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, had all made concurrent findings of Lingam having interfered with judicial appointments.

She said counsel Razlan Hadri Zulkifli, representing the Bar Council, had highlighted that Lingam was unable to contradict the account of Loh Gwo Burne who heard the latter (Lingam) attempting to interfere with judicial appointments.

"It is our view that it does not matter which judicial appointments exactly the appellant (Lingam) attempted to interfere with, and findings to that extent are not relevant,” she said, adding that the important point was that the findings were made on Lingam’s attempt to interfere and they were not rebutted.

Justice Tengku Maimun, who sat with Federal Court judges Datuk Mary Lim Thiam Suan and Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, ordered Lingam to pay cost of RM30,000.

In the court's unanimous decision, Justice Tengku Maimun said there was also direct evidence from Loh who directly witnessed Lingam speaking on the phone as alleged in a video clip.

She said the court was satisfied that Loh did in fact testified on the video and confirmed that the contents of the video were in fact uttered by Lingam, whose real name is Kanagalingam Vellupillai.

"The disciplinary committee, the disciplinary board and the courts below relied on the evidence of Loh to confirm the contents which form the basis of the finding of misconduct," she said, adding that Lingam did not and had not challenged those points.

Lingam's lawyer R.Thayalan had earlier argued in the court over the admissibility of a video clip which was used to prove misconduct against his client.

He said the original video recordings were not produced before the disciplinary committee or to the disciplinary board instead a downloaded copy was produced.

In the court's decision, Justice Tengku Maimun said it was mandatory for the disciplinary board to comply with requirements of the amended section 103D(1) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) 1974 which required it to state its reasons for rejecting the disciplinary committee's recommendation to impose a lesser punishment on Lingam.

"However, we are unable to agree with the appellant (Lingam) how this failure to comply with the section renders the disciplinary board order dated Nov 6 2015 a nullity and that the reasons had to be stated in the order itself," she said.

She said the court found that the disciplinary board had duly given its reasons for its decision and its order to strike Lingam off the Roll was not a nullity.

Lingam was struck off the roll as an advocate and solicitor by the disciplinary board on Nov 6, 2015. - BERNAMA