ABSTRACT
While many other common law and Commonwealth jurisdictions have developed the legislative reform of admission by apologetic discourse, Malaysia is lagging. Under the existing legal regime in Malaysia, admission by apologetic discourse shall become an admission to negligence and misconduct in Malaysian courts. As a result, tortfeasors and wrongdoers including professional practitioners are known to avoid offering an apology, that further strained their relationship with clients. Hence, this paper aims to prove that the legislative reform of the law pertaining to admission by apologetic discourse is supported by the theory of therapeutic jurisprudence. The paper employs a thematic analysis of the therapeutic jurisprudence theory to explore the relationship between the therapeutic jurisprudence theory and legislative reform of admission by apologetic discourse in Malaysia. Based on the analysis, this paper finds that the therapeutic jurisprudence theory is able to absolve the adverse effects of professional negligence and misconduct. This paper concludes that the therapeutic jurisprudence theory serves as a supporting theory for the legislative reform of admission by apologetic discourse in Malaysia.
Nurul Shuhada Suhaimi, Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim and Noraiza Abdul Rahman, The Application of Therapeutic Jurisprudence Theory for a Legislative Reform of Admission by Apologetic Discourse in Malaysia, Journal of Administrative Science, volume 19, issue 2, 2022, pp 215-228.
Leave a Reply