The legal profession has strongly responded to questions surrounding the relevance of cross-examination in a legal proceeding after a High Court judge's revelation that he prevented lawyers from doing so in his courtroom.

Prominent human rights lawyer R Sivarasa said the established principle of cross-examination must not be intruded upon.

"It is a basic right of both parties and the whole adversarial system of trial is premised on the right to cross-examine witnesses," he added when contacted.

He said in the event a lawyer feels his cross-examining rights are being neglected, an objection can be made on record in relation to the judge's interventions, and on appeal to a higher court it would reflect strongly on the outcome of the case.

In an interview with the New Straits Times published on Wednesday , High Court judge Abdul Wahab Patail said he restricts lawyers from cross-examining witnesses if he finds that there is no need for the process.

"If a lawyer wants to cross-examine just because he wants to question the other side, I say no," said the judge, who is also brother of the country's attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail, of his attempts to expedite justice.

He also said that sometimes, he relied on things like witness statements which sets out a lawyer's questions and his/her witness' replies and does away with oral evidence as well as cross-examinations where lawyers question their opponents' witnesses.

Lawyers' role?

An experienced lawyer said in anonymity of having heard complaints from colleagues - although he has yet to experience it himself - that the judge has prevented lawyers from even beginning their cross-examination.

"Although, he apparently does it in a very diplomatic manner advising the lawyers that their line of questioning was going to be irrelevant," he told malaysiakini.

The lawyer added that he understood and agreed that there is a need to expedite legal proceedings but found it ridiculous for lawyers not to be allowed the right to directly cross-examine witnesses.

"What then is the role of lawyers?" he asked.

It was also reported in a local daily today that Chief Judge of Malaya Haidar Mohd Noor had said that judges have the discretion to limit cross-examinations for legitimate reasons such as a non-dispute of the evidence by both parties.

Meanwhile, Bar Council Chairperson Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari in a statement yesterday acknowledged the need for constant improvements to the justice system but firmly held that cross-examinations were indispensable in a trial.

"Increasing efficiency and shortening the legal process are important aspects but these have to be achieved without sacrificing fundamental and useful features which have served the system well," he said.

He added that the value and importance of cross-examination in the Malaysian justice system - both criminal and civil trials - are time-tested and a powerful tool in the process of discovering the truth.

"It is never safe to come to a final conclusion based on what one party has said or presented without granting the other party or parties the right to vigorously question its veracity," he asserted of the right which is prescribed in the Evidence Act 1950.