|
Issue #52/2020
17 December 2020
|
To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.
Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.
|
New This Week
|
MOHAMAD FITRI PAUZI v. PP [2020] 10 CLJ 567
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MARY LIM JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA; SUPANG LIAN J
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: Q-05(M)-444-09-2018]
17 FEBRUARY 2020
An accused may be implicated of a crime even when the evidence which was levelled against him is entirely indirect or circumstantial if the series of incidences or the strands of circumstances adduced, in their cumulative strength, point exclusively and irresistibly to his guilt and admit of no other possibility. Where therefore an accused was charged with murder by way of shooting the victim to death with a shotgun, the fact that the circumstantial evidence adduced showed that there was a motive for the killing, that the deceased had been threatened with harm prior to the murder, that the accused was complicit with parties who had a lingering land dispute with the deceased, that the accused had asked a particular witness to join him in 'doing something' to the deceased, that the accused was in possession of the murder weapon at about the same time when the deceased was murdered, that the accused had tested the shotgun a day before the murder at a secluded spot, that a face mask which was recovered from the bag in which the shotgun was kept had contained the accused's DNA, that 12-gauge live bullets and a 12-gauge cartridge shell had been recovered from the same bag and that the wad which was retrieved from the deceased's wound track was consistent with 12-gauge ammunition used for shotguns - taken together - must constitute a credible basis for the trial judge to have come to the conclusion that the evidence had pointed irresistibly to the guilt of the accused. The conviction was thus safe, a fortiori when the alibi that the accused had minded to proffer, being entirely imprecise and bereft of details, was nothing but a sham.
CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Whether sufficient to establish prima facie case - Whether series of circumstances and coincidences pointed conclusively and irresistibly to guilt of accused - Notice of alibi - Whether alibi defence a sham - Whether defence of accused 'afterthought' or 'recent invention' - Whether evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that accused was responsible for murder of deceased - Whether conviction safe
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Whether sufficient to establish prima facie case - Whether series of circumstances and coincidences pointed conclusively and irresistibly to guilt of accused - Notice of alibi - Whether alibi defence a sham - Whether defence of accused 'afterthought' or 'recent invention' - Whether evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that accused was responsible for murder of deceased - Whether conviction and sentence safe
EVIDENCE: Circumstantial evidence - Murder - Conviction - Whether circumstantial evidence adduced sufficient to establish prima facie case - Whether series of circumstances and coincidences pointed conclusively and irresistibly to guilt of accused - Whether utterances by witness 'hearsay' or evidence of motive - Presence of accused's DNA on significant items - Whether supported inference of sinister purposes - Whether evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that accused was responsible for murder of deceased - Whether conviction safe
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MALAYSIA v. MOHD KASSIM MOHD HAMID (NO 2) [2020] 10 CLJ 631
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
MEOR HASHIMI ABDUL HAMID JC
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: BA-42(ORS)(A)-1-09-2019]
15 MARCH 2020
A coroner conducting an inquest under Chapter XXXII of the Criminal Procedure Code, upon a proper reading of O. 52 r. 3 Rules of Court 2012, s. 99A Subordinate Courts Act 1948 and para 26 of the Third Schedule to the Act, is a 'court of law' in every sense of the term, albeit an inferior or subordinate court, and in that capacity has the jurisdiction to take cognisance of any act of contempt whether committed on its face or otherwise, and to impose appropriate punishments there for. This said, and whilst the coroner's power to award punishments is limited to acts of contempt as prescribed in the said para. 26, the coroner, in dealing with committal proceedings, must strictly observe the legal and procedural safeguards emplaced by law for such proceedings. Hence, where an application for leave to commit the Attorney General to prison was allowed, but that the coroner, in so allowing leave, has failed to consider the affidavits thus filed by the Attorney General's Chambers to oppose the application, and has further treated the proceeding as an opposed ex parte application instead of an inter parte proceeding despite the fact that the purported act of contempt by the Attorney General happened in the course of the ongoing inquest proceedings and the parties were present before the coroner, then such of the coroner's decision to grant leave must be seen as fatally flawed and unsustainable; the coroner, by her said omissions, has misdirected herself in law and has seriously prejudiced and caused unfairness to the Attorney General.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against coroner's decision - Appeal by Public Prosecutor - Public Prosecutor directed inquest into death - Allegations that Public Prosecutor made premature decision regarding deceased's death and delayed and disrupted continuity and transparency of inquest - Leave for committal proceedings against Public Prosecutor granted by coroner - Whether coroner seized with jurisdiction to punish for contempt - Whether procedural requirements for leave under O. 52 r. 3 of Rules of Court 2012 strictly adhered to
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - Coroner - Public Prosecutor directed inquest into death - Allegations that Public Prosecutor made premature decision regarding deceased's death and delayed and disrupted continuity and transparency of inquest - Leave for committal proceedings against Public Prosecutor granted by coroner - Whether coroner seized with jurisdiction to punish for contempt - Subordinate Courts Act 1948
JI ZHAN CAPITAL SDN BHD v. CHUA & CHEW SDN BHD [2020] 10 CLJ 670
HIGH COURT MALAYA, JOHOR BAHRU
AWANG ARMADAJAYA AWANG MAHMUD JC
[CIVIL SUIT NO: JA-11BNCVC-18-09-2019]
09 JUNE 2020
The general rule that should bind the court in dealing with an application to discontinue an action with liberty to file afresh where the applicant is a dominus litis is to refuse leave, and leave ought particularly to be refused where the case has proceeded to an advanced stage, or where the dominus litis has gained an interim advantage in the case, or where it will prejudice the opponent and take away from him any advantage to which he is fairly and reasonably entitled. In this case, since at the time the application was made the pleadings have already been closed and the case has been set down for trial, and the parties were already on the verge of preparing the relevant cause papers including the case summaries et cetera, the dominus litis plaintiff was clearly having an undue advantage after having seen all the defendant's cards on the table; the order as made by learned Magistrate allowing the plaintiff to withdraw but without liberty is therefore appropriate and tenable and ought to be sustained.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Discontinuance - Discontinuance of action without liberty to file afresh - Appeal against - Whether pleadings closed and trial dates already set down - Whether plaintiff 'dominus litis' - Whether allowing plaintiff a withdrawal with liberty to file afresh may cause tactical disadvantage to defendant
“Prinsip yang terpakai dalam sesuatu permohonan pemindahan kes jenayah dari mahkamah rendah ke Mahkamah Tinggi adalah seperti diputuskan oleh banyak kes terdahulu, iaitu ia merupakan suatu kuasa kehakiman yang perlu diputuskan 'judicially', yang hanya boleh dilaksanakan berasaskan kehendak-kehendak khusus yang dinyatakan dalam s. 417 KTJ dan bukannya berasaskan sebab musabab yang tidak relevan di sisi undang-undang.”
“Perkara utama yang perlu diputuskan dalam suatu permohonan pemindahan menurut s. 417(1)(b) ialah keperluan mahkamah ini untuk melihat ke hadapan, menjangka dan menduga apakah akan wujud persoalan undang-undang yang luar biasa kesukarannya pada masa hadapan apabila kes pemohon dikendalikan di hadapan HMS. Inilah kehendak khusus s. 417(1)(b) yang menggunakan frasa '... question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise'.”
“Bermakna, mahkamah ini semasa mempertimbangkan permohonan pemohon di bawah peruntukan ini mesti mempunyai suatu 'anticipatory mind' untuk melihat, setelah mengambil kira semua fakta dan dokumen di hadapannya, adakah persoalan undang-undang yang dikatakan oleh pihak pemohon sebagai luar biasa kesukarannya itu akan berbangkit di masa hadapan. Seterusnya, mahkamah ini perlu juga membuat dapatan jika jawapan kepada persoalan itu adalah negatif, maka permohonan pemohon di bawah peruntukan ini bolehlah ditolak. Sebaliknya, jika jawapan kepada persoalan itu adalah afirmatif, maka adakah HMS yang mengendalikan kes pemohon dapat meleraikan dan memutuskan dengan adil dan saksama persoalan undang-undang yang dikatakan luar biasa kesukarannya itu.” – Per Mohd Radzi Harun PK di dalam Yong Choo Kiong lwn. PP [2020] 3 CLJ 721
Legal Network Series
|
LEE WAI LONG lwn. YUSNAENI SYAH & SATU KES LAGI 1. Penunggang motorsikal yang keluar dari simpang kiri jalan tanpa berhenti dan memasuki laluan sah motorkar yang sedang berada di jalan utama dalam jarak yang sangat dekat tidak terjumlah kepada satu perlanggaran dari belakang. Walaupun, penunggang motorsikal telah keluar dari simpang jalan secara tiba-tiba, pemandu motorkar seharusnya memandu motorkarnya secara cermat dan berhati-hati terutama apabila pemandu adalah biasa dengan tempat kemalangan. 2. Isteri si mati boleh menuntut kehilangan tanggungan bukan sahaja untuk diri sendiri tetapi juga untuk kegunaan ibu bapa, adik beradik atau ahli keluarga yang lain. LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Penentuan liabiliti - Perlanggaran antara motorsikal dan motorkar - Kemalangan berlaku ketika motorsikal keluar dari simpang kiri jalan dan tanpa berhenti menuju ke jalan besar selepas mengisi minyak di stesen minyak - Keadaan jalan yang cerah dan lurus - Pemandu motorkar biasa dengan tempat kemalangan - Sama ada penunggang motorsikal telah memasuki laluan sah motorkar yang sedang berada di jalan utama - Sama ada motorsikal telah hilang kawalan - Sama ada perlanggaran yang berlaku merupakan perlanggaran dari belakang - Sama ada pemandu motorkar seharusnya cermat dan berhati-hati - Sama ada penunggang motorsikal dan pemandu motorkar adalah menanggung cuai 50%-50% atas kemalangan LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Penentuan liabiliti - Perlanggaran antara motorsikal dan motorkar - Tuntutan oleh pembonceng motorsikal terhadap pemandu motorkar - Kecuaian pemandu motorkar dan penunggang motorsikal adalah 50%-50% dalam kemalangan - Sama ada pembonceng motorsikal adalah penumpang yang tidak berdosa - Sama ada pembonceng berhak mendapat ganti rugi pada kadar 100% liabiliti terhadap pemandu - Sama ada pembonceng motorsikal boleh menanggung sebarang cuai sumbang GANTI RUGI: Kematian - Tuntutan tanggungan - Kehilangan tanggungan - Kemalangan maut - Si mati berumur 30 tahun - Tuntutan oleh isteri si mati - Sama ada isteri si mati boleh menuntut kehilangan tanggungan untuk kegunaan ibu bapa, adik beradik dan ahli keluarga yang lain
|
|
|
KETUA PENGARAH KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA & SATU LAGI v. KUBANG BATANG PUSPA-SARI SDN BHD Kontraktor utama adalah berhak untuk menuntut baki bayaran upah kerja yang telah disiapkan setakat tarikh penamatan berikutan penamatan kontrak secara salah oleh majikan mengikut kaedah pengiraan peratusan kerja dan kadar upah bagi kerja yang telah disiapkan yang tidak dicabar oleh majikan. KONTRAK: Kontrak pembinaan - Penamatan - Penamatan salah oleh majikan - Kontraktor utama menuntut untuk ganti rugi bagi penamatan - Tuntutan untuk upah bagi kerja yang telah disiapkan - Pertikaian berkenaan jumlah kerja yang telah disiapkan - Majikan tidak menyangkal kaedah pengiraan peratusan kerja dan kadar upah bagi kerja yang telah disiapkan seperti yang dinyatakan oleh kontraktor - Sama ada nilai kerja setakat tarikh penamatan adalah 92% - Sama ada kontraktor berhak mendapatkan baki bayaran upah kerja yang telah disiapkan setakat tarikh penamatan - Sama ada hakim bicara terkhilaf dengan membenarkan tuntutan kontraktor
|
|
|
KEVIN PETER SCHMIDER v. NADJA GEB SCHMIDER POIGNEE & ANOR It is mandatory for the attesting witnesses of a purported second will to be present in the Court to give evidence on the due execution of the said will and their failure to attend Court will render the purported second will worthless. The purported second will is not valid when the plaintiff being the propounder of the said will failed to dispel all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will and its contents. SUCCESSION: Will - Validity - Last will and testament - Testamentary capacity - Allegation of existence of second will - Grant of probate issued based on first will - Whether alleged second will valid - Whether evidence on testamentary capacity of deceased and due execution of purported second will proven - Whether attendance of attesting witnesses in court mandatory - Whether failure of attesting witness to attend Court rendered second will worthless - Whether there were suspicious circumstances surrounding making of alleged second will and its contents - Whether propounder of second will must dispel all suspicious circumstances
|
|
|
MARITIME INTELLIGENCE SDN BHD v. MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR 1. In determining whether the dismissal of the claimant is with just cause and excuse, the proper inquiry of the Court is the reason advanced by the company in dismissing the claimant. The Court cannot determine the allegation of lack of qualification of the claimant when the claimant was merely terminated on the ground of alleged improper conduct. 2. The Industrial Court may invalidate the findings of the domestic inquiry where there appears to be lack of impartiality in the composition of panel members of the domestic inquiry and inaccuracy in the notes of proceedings that led to the breach of rules of natural justice. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash decision of Industrial Court - Industrial Court ruled dismissal was without just cause and excuse - Company alleged that claimant did not have valid qualifications to be reinstated in his position - Claimant was terminated for improper conduct - Qualification of claimant was not a basis for dismissal - Whether court could inquire into grounds not relied upon at time of dismissal ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash decision of Industrial Court - Industrial Court invalidated findings of domestic inquiry for breach of rules of natural justice - Composition of domestic inquiry panel was not impartial - Inaccuracy in notes of domestic inquiry - Whether Industrial Court was justified in rejecting domestic inquiry
|
|
|
LEE LOK KAN v. FRIZZ STATION SDN BHD A promise given to each other under a sale share agreement should be upheld instead of struck out when the terms of the agreement have been fulfilled. Thus the plaintiff is not entitled to rescind a share sale agreement when he was fully aware and had willingly agreed to the terms stated therein and upon completion of the agreement by registration of shares in the name of the defendant. CONTRACT: Rescission - Misrepresentation - Share sale agreement - Authorization to execute agreement disputed after agreement performed - Agreement drafted by plaintiff himself - Whether plaintiff could dispute authority of defendant when he had taken a nonchalant attitude at time of execution of agreement - Whether plaintiff was fully aware and had willingly agreed to terms of agreement - Whether agreement should be rescinded - Whether understanding and promise given to each other should always be upheld - Whether plaintiff had showed that his rights were infringed
|
CLJ 2020 Volume 10 (Part 5)
An accused may be implicated of a crime even when the evidence which was levelled against him is entirely indirect or circumstantial if the series of incidences or the strands of circumstances adduced, in their cumulative strength, point exclusively and irresistibly to his guilt and admit of no other possibility. Where therefore an accused was charged with murder by way of shooting the victim to death with a shotgun, the fact that the circumstantial evidence adduced showed that there was a motive for the killing, that the deceased had been threatened with harm prior to the murder, that the accused was complicit with parties who had a lingering land dispute with the deceased, that the accused had asked a particular witness to join him in 'doing something' to the deceased, that the accused was in possession of the murder weapon at about the same time when the deceased was murdered, that the accused had tested the shotgun a day before the murder at a secluded spot, that a face mask which was recovered from the bag in which the shotgun was kept had contained the accused's DNA, that 12-gauge live bullets and a 12-gauge cartridge shell had been recovered from the same bag and that the wad which was retrieved from the deceased's wound track was consistent with 12-gauge ammunition used for shotguns - taken together - must constitute a credible basis for the trial judge to have come to the conclusion that the evidence had pointed irresistibly to the guilt of the accused. The conviction was thus safe, a fortiori when the alibi that the accused had minded to proffer, being entirely imprecise and bereft of details, was nothing but a sham.
Mohamad Fitri Pauzi v. PP [2020] 10 CLJ 567 [CA]
CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Whether sufficient to establish prima facie case - Whether series of circumstances and coincidences pointed conclusively and irresistibly to guilt of accused - Notice of alibi - Whether alibi defence a sham - Whether defence of accused 'afterthought' or 'recent invention' - Whether evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that accused was responsible for murder of deceased - Whether conviction safe
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Whether sufficient to establish prima facie case - Whether series of circumstances and coincidences pointed conclusively and irresistibly to guilt of accused - Notice of alibi - Whether alibi defence a sham - Whether defence of accused 'afterthought' or 'recent invention' - Whether evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that accused was responsible for murder of deceased - Whether conviction and sentence safe
EVIDENCE: Circumstantial evidence - Murder - Conviction - Whether circumstantial evidence adduced sufficient to establish prima facie case - Whether series of circumstances and coincidences pointed conclusively and irresistibly to guilt of accused - Whether utterances by witness 'hearsay' or evidence of motive - Presence of accused's DNA on significant items - Whether supported inference of sinister purposes - Whether evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that accused was responsible for murder of deceased - Whether conviction safe
MARY LIM JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
SUPANG LIAN J
- For the appellant - Ranbir S Sangha; M/s Ranbir S Sangha & Co Advocs
- For the prosecution - Nik Suhaimi Nik Sulaiman, Muhammad Azmi Mashud & Jasmee Hameesa Jaafar; DPPs
A coroner conducting an inquest under Chapter XXXII of the Criminal Procedure Code, upon a proper reading of O. 52 r. 3 Rules of Court 2012, s. 99A Subordinate Courts Act 1948 and para 26 of the Third Schedule to the Act, is a 'court of law' in every sense of the term, albeit an inferior or subordinate court, and in that capacity has the jurisdiction to take cognisance of any act of contempt whether committed on its face or otherwise, and to impose appropriate punishments there for. This said, and whilst the coroner's power to award punishments is limited to acts of contempt as prescribed in the said para. 26, the coroner, in dealing with committal proceedings, must strictly observe the legal and procedural safeguards emplaced by law for such proceedings. Hence, where an application for leave to commit the Attorney General to prison was allowed, but that the coroner, in so allowing leave, has failed to consider the affidavits thus filed by the Attorney General's Chambers to oppose the application, and has further treated the proceeding as an opposed ex parte application instead of an inter parte proceeding despite the fact that the purported act of contempt by the Attorney General happened in the course of the ongoing inquest proceedings and the parties were present before the coroner, then such of the coroner's decision to grant leave must be seen as fatally flawed and unsustainable; the coroner, by her said omissions, has misdirected herself in law and has seriously prejudiced and caused unfairness to the Attorney General.
Attorney General Of Malaysia v. Mohd Kassim Mohd Hamid (No 2) [2020] 10 CLJ 631 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against coroner's decision - Appeal by Public Prosecutor - Public Prosecutor directed inquest into death - Allegations that Public Prosecutor made premature decision regarding deceased's death and delayed and disrupted continuity and transparency of inquest - Leave for committal proceedings against Public Prosecutor granted by coroner - Whether coroner seized with jurisdiction to punish for contempt - Whether procedural requirements for leave under O. 52 r. 3 of Rules of Court 2012 strictly adhered to
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - Coroner - Public Prosecutor directed inquest into death - Allegations that Public Prosecutor made premature decision regarding deceased's death and delayed and disrupted continuity and transparency of inquest - Leave for committal proceedings against Public Prosecutor granted by coroner - Whether coroner seized with jurisdiction to punish for contempt - Subordinate Courts Act 1948
:
:
MEOR HASHIMI ABDUL HAMID JC
- For the appellant - Ambiga Sreenevasan, Zainur Zakaria, Narkunavathy Sundareson, Mankiranjit Kaur Mehinder Singh & Sarah Ho; DPPs
- For the respondent/applicant - Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, Aidil Khalid & Abdul
- Rahim Sinwan; M/s Mohd Zubir Embong & Assocs
The general rule that should bind the court in dealing with an application to discontinue an action with liberty to file afresh where the applicant is a dominus litis is to refuse leave, and leave ought particularly to be refused where the case has proceeded to an advanced stage, or where the dominus litis has gained an interim advantage in the case, or where it will prejudice the opponent and take away from him any advantage to which he is fairly and reasonably entitled. In this case, since at the time the application was made the pleadings have already been closed and the case has been set down for trial, and the parties were already on the verge of preparing the relevant cause papers including the case summaries et cetera, the dominus litis plaintiff was clearly having an undue advantage after having seen all the defendant's cards on the table; the order as made by learned Magistrate allowing the plaintiff to withdraw but without liberty is therefore appropriate and tenable and ought to be sustained.
Ji Zhan Capital Sdn Bhd v. Chua & Chew Sdn Bhd [2020] 10 CLJ 670 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Discontinuance - Discontinuance of action without liberty to file afresh - Appeal against - Whether pleadings closed and trial dates already set down - Whether plaintiff 'dominus litis' - Whether allowing plaintiff a withdrawal with liberty to file afresh may cause tactical disadvantage to defendant
:
:
AWANG ARMADAJAYA AWANG MAHMUD JC
- For the appellant - Azmi Azahar; M/s Tan Vincent & Azmi
- For the respondent - David Soosay; M/s Yeow & Chin
Hukuman bagi kesalahan menganiaya anak kandung berumur lapan tahun sehingga mengakibatkan kecederaan parah wajar setimpal dengan keseriusan kesalahan walaupun tertuduh mengaku salah, lebih-lebih lagi apabila kecederaan fizikal dan mental berkenaan dilakukan berulang kali; pindaan kepada Akta Kanak-kanak 2001 yang memperuntukkan hukuman lebih berat terhadap kes sedemikian membayangkan keutamaan perlu diberi kepada kepentingan awam. Oleh itu, hukuman 5 tahun penjara, bon berkelakuan baik selama dua tahun dan perintah khidmat masyarakat selama 160 jam yang dikenakan ke atas tertuduh oleh Hakim Sesyen harus dikekalkan; selain itu, tertuduh juga harus diperintah melapor diri di Balai Polis sebulan sekali selama setahun serta menjalani sesi kaunseling dengan Pejabat Kebajikan Masyarakat juga untuk tempoh setahun.
Noor Amie Abd Rahman lwn. PP [2020] 10 CLJ 686 [HC]
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Rayuan - Pertuduhan bawah s. 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-kanak 2001 ('AKK') - Menganiaya anak kandung berumur lapan tahun hingga mengakibatkan kecederaan seluruh badan - Pengakuan bersalah - Hukuman penjara lima tahun dan perintah-perintah bawah s. 31(2)(a) AKK dengan syarat tambahan - Sama ada hukuman perlu dikurangkan - Faktor-faktor yang dipertimbangkan - Kepentingan awam dan keparahan serta kesan kecederaan fizikal dan mental pada mangsa - Sama ada hukuman mencerminkan keseriusan kesalahan - Sama ada hukuman wajar dikekalkan
:
:
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID PK
- Bagi pihak perayu - hadir sendiri
- Baqi pihak responden - Muhamad Sheqal Che Murat; TPR
The attachment of an electronic monitoring device (EMD) on an accused charged with a security offence under s. 26E of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) and who has been granted bail pending his trial is a matter of the court's discretion and not mandatory; both s. 388A of the Criminal Procedure Code and s. 13 of SOSMA do not make the attachment compulsory, even when an application there for is made by the Public Prosecutor. In the circumstances of this case, the sole reason given by the Public Prosecutor, namely that it will secure the attendance of the accused in court, is not sufficiently founded as the court sees no issue or predicament with the presence of the respondent in court, even after he is being released on bail; that being the case, there is no necessity for any additional term such as the attachment of an EMD to be added to the earlier bail conditions as so imposed by the court.
PP v. Chien Guan Chai & Anor And Another Appl ication [2020] 10 CLJ 703 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Bail - Unbailable offence - Notice of motion seeking order for electronic monitoring device to be attached to accused persons seeking bail - Whether compulsory for electronic monitoring device to be attached to accused persons - Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, s. 26E - Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, s. 13 - Application of art. 8 of Federal Constitution
:
:
AKHTAR TAHIR J
- For the prosecution - Noor Azura Zulkiflee; DPP
- For the accused - Ranjit Singh Dhillon & Md Yusoff ldriss; M/s Yusuf ldris & Co
LNS Article(s)
WHETHER A SUB-LICENSEE OF A REGISTERED INDUSTRIAL DESIGN OWNER HAS THE REQUIRED STANDING TO SUE FOR DESIGN INFRINGEMENT
A CASE NOTE* [Read excerpt]
by Sim Sook Eng [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxlAUSTRALIA'S MODERN SLAVERY LEGISLATION
A SPOTLIGHT ON LARGE BUSINESSES [Read excerpt]
by Arthur Marusevich* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxliARBITRABILITY OF DISPUTES INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD:
WHAT INDIAN SUPREME COURT HELD?* [Read excerpt]
by Rahul Kumar* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxlii
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 830 | Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)) Act 2020 | 27 February 2020 until 31 December 2022 except s 3; 26 October 2020 until 31 December 2022 - s 3 | - |
| ACT 829 | Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 | Part I - 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years); Part II, Part III (Limitation Act 1953), Part IV (Sabah Limitation Ordinance), Part V (Sarawak Limitation Ordinance), Part VI (Public Authorities Protection Act 1948), Part IX (Consumer Protection Act 1999), Part X (Distress Act 1951) - 18 March 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part VII (Insolvency Act 1967) - 23 October 2020 until 31 August 2021; Part VIII (Hire-Purchase Act 1967) - 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part XI (Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966), Part XII (Industrial Relations Act 1967), Part XIII (Private Employment Agencies Act 1981), Part XIX - 18 March 2020; Part XIV (Land Public Transport Act 2010), Part XV (Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987) - 1 August 2020 until 31 December 2021; Part XVI (Courts of Judicature Act 1964), Part XVII (Subordinate Courts Act 1948), Part XVIII (Subordinate Courts Rules Act 1955) - 18 March 2020 until 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years) | - |
| ACT 828 | National Land Code (Revised 2020) | 15 October 2020 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 October 2020; First enacted in 1965 as Act of Parliament No 56 of 1965 | - |
| ACT 827 | Currency Act 2020 | 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 476/2020] | - |
| ACT 826 | Food Donors Protection Act 2020 | 31 March 2020 [PU(B) 166/2020] | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1625 | National Security Council (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 November 2020 | ACT 776 |
| ACT A1624 | Insolvency (Amendment) Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 360 |
| ACT A1623 | Subordinate Courts Rules (Amendment) Act 2020 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 532/2020] | ACT 55 |
| ACT A1622 | Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2020 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 531/2020] | ACT 92 |
| ACT A1621 | Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Act 2020 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 530/2020] | ACT 91 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 359/2020 | Emergency (Essential Powers) (No. 3) Ordinance 2020 | 15 December 2020 | 12 December 2020 | ACT 000 |
| PU(A) 358/2020 | Proclamation of Emergency (No. 3) | 15 December 2020 | 16 December 2020 | ACT 000 |
| PU(A) 357/2020 | Emergency (Essential Powers) (No. 2) Ordinance 2020 | 15 December 2020 | 12 December 2020 | ACT 000 |
| PU(A) 356/2020 | Proclamation of Emergency (No. 2) | 15 December 2020 | 16 December 2020 | ACT 000 |
| PU(A) 355/2020 | Printing Presses and Publications (Control of Undesirable Publications) (No. 4) Order 2020 | 15 December 2020 | 16 December 2020 | ACT 301 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 592/2020 | Revocation of Exemption Under Section 65U | 13 November 2020 | 15 November 2020 | ORD 70/1952 |
| PU(B) 591/2020 | Appointment of Judges of The Syariah Subordinate Court | 13 November 2020 | 21 September 2020 | ACT 505 |
| PU(B) 590/2020 | Appointment of Deputy Director General of The Rubber Industry Smallholders Development Authority | 12 November 2020 | Specified in column (2) of the Schedule | ACT 85 |
| PU(B) 589/2020 | Notice of Extension of Time Period For Making Preliminary Determination | 11 November 2020 | 12 November 2020 | ACT 504 |
| PU(B) 588/2020 | Notice of Extension of Time Period For Making Preliminary Determination | 11 November 2020 | 12 November 2020 | ACT 504 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 479/1998 | Fees (Employment Pass, Visit Pass (Temporary Employment) and Work Pass) Order 1998 | PU(A) 354/2020 | 15 December 2020 | New paragraph 3B and new Schedule IB |
| PU(A) 376/1995 | Rules of the Federal Court 1995 | PU(A) 353/2020 | 15 December 2020 | Rules 107, 110 and new rule 127A |
| PU(A) 524/1994 | Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 | PU(A) 352/2020 | 15 December 2020 | Rule 77 and new rule 95A |
| PU(A) 205/2012 | Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 | PU(A) 351/2020 | 15 Disember 2020 | Aturan 1, 10, 33A, 35, 42, 55, 62, 63A, 65, 70, 92 dan 93 |
| PU(A) 5/2017 | Customs Duties Order 2017 | PU(A) 350/2020 | 15 December 2020 | First Schedule |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(B) 166/2019 | Exemption Under Section 65U | PU(B) 592/2020 | 15 November 2020 |
| PU(A) 298/2019 | Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control) (Appointment) (No. 4) Order 2019 | PU(A) 332/2020 | 30 November 2020 |
| PU(A) 229/2020 | Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control of Koperasi Automobil Kuching Sarawak Berhad) (Reappointment) Order 2020 | PU(A) 331/2020 | 30 November 2020 |
| PU(A) 31/2011 | Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Protected Benefits) Regulations 2011 | PU(A) 327/2020 | 1 January 2021 |
| PU(A) 27/2011 | Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Protected Benefits Limit) Order 2011 | PU(A) 326/2020 | 1 January 2021 |