New Straits Times 16 Jan 12;
PUTRAJAYA: The suggestion to set up a special court to deal with environment matters was met with cautious optimism by non-governmental organisations.
Traffic, an international organisation that monitors wildlife trade, said while the call made by Chief Justice Tan Sri Ariffin Zakaria was a good one, prosecutors in the Attorney- General's Chambers and legal advisers of government departments needed to have a better understanding for the court to have an impact.
Traffic is a joint programme of the World Wide Fund for Nature and the World Conservation Union.
"They should have a much better understanding of wildlife crime and a better grasp of wildlife laws," its senior communications officer Elizabeth John said when contacted yesterday.
Malaysian Nature Society was also pleased that the chief justice had identified environmental issues as an important matter that needed special consideration.
Its head of communications, Andrew Sebastian, said the organisation had always been puzzled as to why offenders were not handed down the maximum punishment in many cases.
"Whether a new specialised court is the answer remains to be seen. We hope the different agencies will discuss this idea further."
Selangor Forestry Department assistant director (operations and enforcement) Mohd Yussainy Md Yusop said while the idea for a specialised court was a good one, state and federal laws needed to be synchronised so that tackling environmental crimes could be a priority.
Yussainy, who has been fighting against mangrove wood smugglers in the state, explained that jurisdiction between environment-related matters, such as land laws and wildlife laws, were divided between federal and state authorities.
On Saturday, Ariffin proposed the setting up of an environment court to handle such cases and increase the awareness of nature's importance.
He said a court dedicated to handling environment matters was important as 60 per cent of the country was forested.
WWF-Malaysia Welcomes Proposed Creation Of environmental Courts
Bernama 16 Jan 12;
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 16 (Bernama) -- The World Wide Fund for Nature-Malaysia (WWF-Malaysia) has welcomed the proposed introduction of "environmental courts" in the country.
It expressed hope that the initiative would play a key role towards establishing frameworks that effectively institutionalise the capacity and role of the judiciary in the application of environmental law and policy that ultimately support sustainable development.
WWF-Malaysia said the move would promote and define environmental justice in the country by strengthening environmental laws and regulations as well as improve governance mechanisms.
"We're certain that the proposed establishment of a specialised court that adjudicate environmental matters will go a long way in ensuring strict implementation, enforcement and compliance of environmental laws and policy in the country," its executive director and chief executive Datuk Dr Dionysius Sharma said.
Chief Justice Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria had said that specialised environmental courts may soon be introduced in the country at the opening of the 2012 Legal Year and Conference of Judges in Putrajaya.
-- BERNAMA
Green court is in keeping with the times
The Star 17 Jan 12;
I REFER to “Green Courts in pipeline” (Sunday Star, Jan 15). As an environmental scholar myself, I was delighted with our Chief Justice’s announcement regarding the introduction of Environmental Courts in Malaysia.
I strongly support the introduction of a specialised Environmental Court dealing with green issues that impact the health, safety and welfare of citizens.
Important environmental issues such as housing, fire, solid waste, animal control, building and health should be prioritised within the court system. In this way, we can reduce the number of repeat offenders and increase public awareness of problems associated with the environment.
It is an undeniable fact that, in the modern times we live in today, increasing industrial activity brings with it damaging consequences for the environment, and this in turn requires a corresponding increase in regulation.
Hence, environmental law becomes part of a dynamic, constantly evolving area, and it deserves special treatment more than any other area of law.
The need for a specialised Environmental Court was envisaged by Dr Mohd Naeem in his 1995 paper “Protecting Environment From Pollution: Efforts and The Law In Malaysia”, where he stated that in Malaysia environmental polluters do bad things knowingly, sometimes negligently or sometimes recklessly.
They do not have any respect for the environment. They think what they are doing is neither wrong nor is it an offence. Sometimes they are under the wrong impression that their doings have no damaging effect on others in the vicinity.
He asserted that those who cause pollution by engaging in such irresponsible practices must be prosecuted in specialised courts.
Most developed countries such as Australia, Canada and the US have environmental courts within their states. European countries such as Denmark, Finland and Sweden have divisions within the court system reserved for environmental cases. Even developing nations such as Bangladesh, Kenya and Malawi have created environmental courts and tribunals.
Recently, in India, the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, provided for the establishment of a National Green Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection.
The Indian 2010 Act also empowers the tribunal with enforcement rights relating to the environment and giving of relief and compensation to persons.
The benefit of an environmental court was discussed by the former UK Chief Justice Lord Woolf in his 1992 lecture “Are the Judiciary Environmentally Myopic”.
Lord Woolf suggested that having environmental courts with general responsibility for overseeing and enforcing the safeguards provided for the protection of environment is the most effective way of dealing with environmental matters.
However, Lord Woolf also cautioned that environmental disputes require degrees of specialist knowledge, and following this, it has been suggested by the Law Commission in India, that the environmental courts must not only be staffed exclusively by persons with judicial or legal experience but be supported by persons having scientific qualifications and experience in the environmental field.
This will enable the specialist court to analyse the differing economic and legal instruments at work in environmental law.
As a result, under the Indian 2010 Act, environmental tribunals would have the benefit of expert advice from technically qualified environmental scientists as part of the judicial process.
Evidently, the establishment of an environmental court is a step forward for Malaysian environmental jurisprudence.
As Gitanjali Gill points out in her 2010 paper “A Green Tribunal for India”, the environmental court is unlikely to be a panacea for all environmental ills, but it could provide a lead in terms of new forms of environmental dispute resolution and do much to further advance a distinctly green jurisprudence.
For Malaysia, this will be a system appropriate for its contemporary needs.
M. SARAVANABAVAN,
Ipoh.
Green courts in pipeline
Zuhrin Azam Ahmad and Qishin Tariq The Star 15 Jan 12;
PUTRAJAYA: A man who stole 11 cans of Tiger beer and Guinness stout was jailed for five years. And another man who had illegal possession of a dead tiger got away with a RM7,000 fine.
“Clearly our values are misplaced. Surely, our tigers are worth more than the 11 cans of Tiger beer,” Chief Justice Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria said when opening the 2012 Legal Year and Conference of Judges here yesterday.
To end this problem, specialised “environmental courts” may soon be introduced in the country to handle cases involving environmental crime.
Arifin said there should be an end to the lack of sensitivity to such crimes.
He said the judiciary would provide more training to its judges and officers on environmental law.
He also issued a stern reminder to members of the judiciary not to abuse their position and to avoid exposure to corrupt practices.
Judges and officers, he said, should continue to maintain the dignity and integrity of their office.
“We should at all times conduct ourselves in a manner befitting our position in society.
“Always bear in mind that your conduct, be it in private or in your official capacity, is subject to public scrutiny.
“In conducting a trial, do it with decorum,” he said.
Arifin also urged lawyers to stop making wild and baseless accusations against judges.
“This is because your words are taken seriously by the public. Such allegations may undermine the integrity of the judiciary,” he said.
He also announced that from this month, all criminal and civil appeals in the Federal Court would be heard by a five-man quorum, aimed at improving the quality of judgments and decisions.
At the same function, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said the Peaceful Assembly Act was meant to encourage freedom of expression.
He said there had been consultation with the various stakeholders including the Bar Council before the Act was passed.
“However, in consulting with the stakeholders, we are still governed by the Official Secrets Act. The bottom line is that there can never be a perfect' legislation.
“It can only ever hope to be a right' legislation to meet the exigencies of the relevant time.”
Jail air and water polluters
The Star 18 Jan 12;
THE Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) welcomes the call by Chief Justice Tan Sri Ariffin Zakaria to set up a special court to deal with environment crimes.
But the proposed court should not be limited to the theft of timber from our forests or the poaching or trafficking of our wildlife.
Instead, the Environment Court should also deal with the theft of our other resources such as illegal mining and fishing as well as the pollution of the environment.
The pollution of our water resources and the air we breathe should be punished with mandatory jail sentence due to the seriousness of the environmental crime.
Therefore the Environmental Quality Act (EQA) 1974 (Act 147) should be amended to include this mandatory jail sentence for pollution of the environment.
Discharge of effluents into our streams and rivers would not only affect the fishes and other organisms in the water but also affect the sources of our drinking water, which would in turn affect our health in general, therefore the need for the mandatory jail sentence.
Meanwhile, MNS would like to suggest, and at the same time volunteer to assist the Attorney’s General Chambers with, ILKAP (Institut Latihan Kehakiman dan Perundangan or Judicial and Legal Training Institute) as the training venue – and with the cooperation of the relevant government departments such as the Forestry Department, Wildlife and National Parks Department, Fisheries Department, Marine Parks Department, Department of Environment – to organise and carry out seminars and workshops to ensure that the proposed Environment Court is fully functional to protect our natural resources and the environment for the present and future generations.
Prof DR MAKETAB MOHAMED,
President, MNS.
