Delays in issuing written grounds of judgment are not uncommon in complex cases. But when such delays extend well beyond established timelines, do they begin to affect an accused person’s ability to exercise a meaningful right of appeal? A Case in Point: The 1MDB-Tanore Decision
The decision in the 1MDB-Tanore case involving former prime minister Najib Razak was delivered in open court on 26 December 2025. More than three months on, the full written grounds of judgment have yet to be issued.
This is not, in itself, unprecedented. Delays in the preparation of written grounds have occurred in other complex and high-profile cases, particularly where the record is voluminous and the issues are intricate. But the present situation provides a timely case study — not of any individual judge, but of a broader procedural question.
What happens to the rights of an accused person when the reasoning of the court is not made available in time?
An Unusual Timeline
The 1MDB-Tanore decision was delivered on 26 December 2025, during what is typically a year-end holiday period.
Proceedings began in the morning and continued for much of the day, with the court reading extensively from prepared notes in delivering its decision, right until 8.30 that evening.
In the course of proceedings, Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah also indicated — upon application by counsel for the accused — that the written grounds would be made available in due course, noting that the material would need to be compiled and arranged in a more methodical form.
These observations are not unusual in themselves. Judges often prepare detailed notes ahead of delivery, particularly in complex cases, and may subsequently refine and organise their written grounds.
However, they do underscore a central point: that substantive reasoning has already been articulated, even if the final written form remains pending.
The question, therefore, is not whether reasons exist — but when they will be made fully accessible.
The Eight-Week Expectation
In Malaysia, the preparation of written grounds of judgment is guided by long-standing judicial practice. Pekeliling Ketua Pendaftar Bil. 1/2002 sets an expectation that such grounds be prepared within eight weeks from the filing of a notice of appeal, with reasons to be recorded if that timeline is not met.
This expectation was reaffirmed in a 2025 communication from the Chief Judge of Malaya, underscoring the continued importance of timeliness within the system.
These are not rigid statutory deadlines. Judges must grapple with complex evidence, detailed submissions, and the need to produce decisions that can withstand appellate scrutiny. Time, in such cases, is not a luxury but a necessity.
Yet the existence of an established timeframe suggests that timeliness is not incidental — it is integral.
When Delay Meets the Right of Appeal
The issue, therefore, is not whether delay can occur, but when delay begins to carry consequences.
The right of appeal is a cornerstone of the criminal justice process. But it must be a meaningful right. Appeals are built on reasoning: on understanding how and why a decision was reached, what findings were made, and how the law was applied.
Without full written grounds, the defence is placed in a constrained position. Strategic decisions must be made without complete visibility. Grounds of appeal may be framed without the benefit of the court’s full reasoning.
In practical terms, the process risks becoming reactive rather than considered.
Lessons from Past Cases
Malaysian appellate courts have, on occasion, acknowledged the importance of timely and complete written grounds in facilitating effective appeals.
In Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor, issues relating to the timing and availability of written grounds were raised in the broader context of appellate preparation, highlighting the importance of full reasoning in enabling effective appeals.
Similarly, in Public Prosecutor v Mohd Radhi bin Yaakob, the courts underscored that appellate review depends fundamentally on the trial judge’s reasoning — reinforcing that written grounds are not a mere formality, but an essential component of justice.
These cases do not suggest that delay invalidates a decision. But they illustrate a consistent principle: appellate justice depends on timely and complete reasoning.
Beyond Administrative Delay
None of this suggests impropriety, nor does it diminish the complexity of cases before the courts.
But where established timelines are exceeded by a significant margin, the question shifts. It is no longer about administrative delay alone, but about its impact on the fairness of subsequent proceedings.
Justice is not only about outcomes, but about process. And process includes the timely articulation of reasons.
A judgment delivered without its full written grounds leaves a gap — one that the appellate process is expected to bridge. The longer that gap persists, the more difficult that task becomes.
The 1MDB-Tanore Delay: A Question Worth Asking
At what point, then, does delay cease to be a matter of practicality and begin to affect the fairness of the process itself?
Justice delayed in its reasoning may not overturn a decision — but it can shape the fairness of what comes next. – NMH
Facebook Comments
Facebook Comments