HUJAHAN PELBAGAI PERMOHONAN PERMOHONAN JAMINAN Yusof Mohamed v
HUJAHAN (PELBAGAI PERMOHONAN)
PERMOHONAN JAMINAN Yusof Mohamed v. PP [1995] 1 LNS 291; [1995] 3 MLJ 66: Bail in simple language, means security taken from a person to appear on a fixed date before a court. The meaning of the word 'bail' as ordinarily and commonly understood is to set free a person who is under arrest, detention or is under some kind of restraint by taking security for his appearance. It is well and good that an accused person be put on bail pending the hearing of his appeal. But under our CPC, bail is not to be granted automatically in almost every case. Society has to be protected from the hazards of the misadventures of one who has been alleged to have committed a crime.
q Jadual Pertama Kanun Acara Jenayah (CPC) telah klasifikasikan kesemua kesalahan di dalam Kanun Keseksaan (Penal Code) samada boleh jamin ataupun tidak. q Untuk kesalahan-kesalahan selain daripada Kanun Keseksaan, kesalahan yang memperuntukkan HUKUMAN MATI atau PENJARA 7 TAHUN KE ATAS SAHAJA adalah kesalahan yang TIDAK BOLEH JAMIN.
KESALAHAN BOLEH JAMIN v. SEKSYEN 387 KANUN ACARA JENAYAH – orang yang dituduh dengan kesalahan yang boleh jamin, mempunyai hak untuk mendapat jaminan ‘as of right’ v Kes R v Lim Kwan Seng & Ors (1956) MLJ 178
v. Jaminan juga terpakai dalam kes-kes saman - PP lwn. ROSELI ABD RAHMAN (2009) 8 CLJ 793 Peruntukan s. 387 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah adalah jelas menunjukkan tidak semestinya jamin hanya boleh diperintahkan terhadap kes-kes tangkap (arrest cases) sahaja dan tidak juga hanya terpakai terhadap tertuduh yang dibawa ke hadapan mahkamah melalui tangkapan atau ditahan dengan tanpa waran oleh pegawai polis sahaja. Ternyata bahawa peruntukan ini juga terpakai kepada keadaan dalam mana tertuduh merupakan orang yang hadir ke mahkamah untuk menjawab satu kes saman termasuklah saman trafik. (perenggan 14)
v. Mahkamah hanya mempunyai budi bicara untuk tentukan jumlah jaminan sahaja v. SEKSYEN 389 KANUN ACARA JENAYAH – Tidak ada jumlah yang khusus ditetapkan untuk setiap kesalahan tetapi memadai untuk menjamin kehadiran OKT ke mahkamah dan tidaklah terlalu excessive.
Ø Syarat-syarat boleh diletakkan di dalam jaminan walaupun tidak dinyatakan di secara jelas dalam s. 388 seperti jumlah jaminan, bilangan penjamin, serahkan pasport, laporkan diri ke balai polis Ø Syarat-syarat tidak boleh diletakkan bagi jaminan di bawah seksyen 387 seperti menahan passport dan sebagainya. Ø Lihat PP V Dato’ Mat (1991) 2 MLJ 186, PP v Abdul Rahim bin Hj Ahmad & Ors (1988) 3 MLJ 272
Samada jamin di bawah s. 387 boleh dibatalkan atau tidak ? ? Ø Kes Mohd Jalil bin Abdullah & Anor v PP (1996) 5 MLJ 114 – tindakan majistret yang batalkan jaminan bagi kesalahan boleh jamin setelah tertuduh beberapa kali gagal hadirkan diri ke mahkamah adalah salah dan mahkamah tinggi putuskan sepatutnya satu jumlah jaminan yang baru dikenakan dengan ‘sufficient surreties’ Ø Dibezakan dengan Wong Kim Woon v PP (1999) 5 MLJ 114
PERMOHONAN PELUPUSAN BARANG KES Ø Berdasarkan Peruntukkan s. 46 B Ø An order for the forfeiture…. shall be made if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that an offence under this Act has been committed and that…. was the subject matter of or was used in the commission of the offence, even though no person has been convicted of such offence. [s. 46 B(2)] Ø If there is no prosecution with regard to any…seized under this Act, such…. shall be taken and deemed to be forfeited at the expiration of a period of one calendar month from the date of service of the notice. [s. 46 B(3)]
Ø Any person asserting that he is the owner of the… referred to in subsection (3) and that it is not liable to forfeiture may personally or by his agent authorized in writing, give written notice to the Director General or any officer duly authorized in… Ø On receipt of the notice referred to in subsection (4), the Director General or any officer duly authorized in writing by him shall refer the claim to a Sessions Court Judge Ø The Sessions Court Judge to whom a matter is referred under subsection (6) shall issue a summons requiring the person asserting that he is the owner of the…the person from whom it was seized to appear before him, and when the person appears or fails to appear, due service of the summons having been proved, the Sessions Court Judge shall proceed to the examination of the matter.
Ø If it is proved that an offence under this Act has been committed and that the…was the subject matter of or was used in the commission of such offence…the Sessions Court Judge shall order the…to be forfeited, and shall, in the absence of such proof, order its release.
PERMOHONAN MENCABAR KEBOLEHCAYAAN SAKSI (IMPEACHMENT) Ø Hanya boleh digunakan sebagai pilihan terakhir Ø Kena tentukan samada masih ingin gunakan keterangan lain saksi tersebut ataupun tidak Ø Sekiranya masih ingin gunakan sebahagian keterangan lain saksi tersebut jangan impeach, cukup sekadar soal balas keterangan yang bercanggah dan kemudiannya hujahkan untuk pohon mahkamah untuk accept part reject part (seksyen 145 Akta Keterangan)
IMPAK IMPEACHMENT !!! KREDIBILITI SAKSI TERSEBUT MUSNAH & KESEMUA KETERANGAN BELIAU TIDAK AKAN DIAMBIL KIRA OLEH MAHKAMAH § PP V MUNUSAMY [1980] 2 MLJ 133 § MATTHEW LIM V GAME WARDEN, PAHANG [1960] MLJ 89
IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE • Establish by oral evidence that the witness has given evidence in Court which is materially different from his statement • Inform the court that we are intending to impeach the credit of the witness • Highlight or underline the written statement the portion on which the witness has materially contradicted himself • Hand over the statement to the court pointing out the contradiction • Court will determine whethere’s material contradiction or not • If the court rules it to be immaterial, no impeachment proceeding will be allowed and the trial continue • If the court rules it to be material, impeachment proceeding will be allowed to proceed
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS • • Ask the witness whether he made that particular statement If witness admits, show to him the statement for the purpose of identification Once identified by the witness, have the document marked as an exhibit by the court If the witness denies making the statements, proceed to prove that the statement was made by the witness • Manner of proof: - call the recording officer. If interpreter was used during recording such statement, call the interpreter - establish who made the statement, the witness understood the questioning by the recording officer, the witness understood the warnings as found in s. 112 CPC, the statement was read back to the witness after recording and the witness confirmed it to be correct - if all above is established, proceed to mark the statement as exhibit • Court to proceed to point out the material contradictions to the witness • Court to ask the witness to explain the contradictions • Leave to the court to consider explaination by the witness • Court will make rulling at the end of prosecution stage
Rujuk Kes : § § § § § Husdi v PP [1980] 2 MLJ 80 Pavone v PP [1986] 1 MLJ 72 Ip Ying Wah v PP [1958] MLJ 34 Krishnan v PP [1981] 2 MLJ 121 PP v Shamsul Kamar Mohd Zin [1988] 2 MLJ 252 PP v Teng Chen Chooi [1989] 1 CLJ 56 Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim v PP [1983] 2 MLJ 232 PP v Somwang Phatthanasaeng [1992] 1 SLR 138 PP v Mohd Ali Bin Abang & Ors [1994] 2 MLJ 12
TERIMA KASIH… MUHAMAD ASYRAF BIN MD KAMAL KETUA PENOLONG PENGARAH PROGRAM LITIGASI ILKAP asyraf@ilkap. gov. my 0122878363
- Slides: 17