Daim & Gamany

On the court record

Daim & Gamany appears in the reported judgments as an appellate and constitutional-litigation practice whose docket is concentrated in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) and the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan), with some first-instance matters in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), and it appears most often as respondent. A distinctive cluster of its corpus concerns the appellate machinery of criminal justice: whether the Court of Appeal may strike out a criminal appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor where the notice of appeal cannot be served on the respondent, and whether, having done so, it retains power to reinstate the appeal. The firm also appears in constitutional litigation of real weight, including the review jurisdiction of the Federal Court under Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995, and challenges to judicial whipping as disproportionate and contrary to Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution and to the prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment reflected in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Citizenship by operation of law is a further recurring theme, argued for an applicant seeking a declaration of citizenship under Article 14(1)(b) read with the relevant schedule of the Federal Constitution. Its corpus also touches negligence and the establishment of a breach of duty. Acting predominantly as respondent, and predominantly on appeal, the firm presents as a practice whose corpus is defined by constitutional and appellate questions — the striking out and reinstatement of criminal appeals, the apex court's review jurisdiction, the constitutionality of punishment, and citizenship — rather than by ordinary commercial or first-instance litigation. The judicial-whipping challenge is among the more significant matters in its corpus, inviting the court to measure a long-established sentencing practice against contemporary constitutional and human-rights standards. Its recurring appearance as respondent in these matters reflects a practice defending decisions and positions under constitutional challenge, and carrying those questions through the appellate courts to final determination.