LAW084PI005 U04 “ NO PERSON SHALL SUFFER GREATER PUNISHMENT FOR AN OFFENCE THAN WAS PRESCRIBED BY LAW AT THE TIME IT WAS COMMITTED ” GROUP 3 Malaysian Cases : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V ROZITA BT MOHAMAD ALI [2018] 9 MLJ 1 DOROSAMY A/L CHINNIA @ ALI BIN ABDULLAH V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2020] MLJU 2257 LAW PUNISHMENT ARTICLE 7 FEDEREAL CONSTITUTION 84INTRODUCTION TO MALAYSIAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
ADILAH BINTI SHAIFUL EMRAN (2023658698) NAINA LATISYA BINTI ZABRI (2023638598) AUNI FARAHIN BINTI FAISAL (2023801856) MUHAMMAD BIN KHAMARUL BAHARIN (2023616938) HAZIRAH BINTI PERLIS@JOLIS (2023453766) TEAM MEMBERS PI005 U04
ARTICLE 7 FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PROTECTION AGAINST RETROSPECTIVE CRIMINAL LAWS AND REPEATED TRIALS Article 7(1) of Federal Constitution prohibits the retroactive application of criminal laws. It means that individuals cannot be punished for actions or omissions that were not considered criminal offenses at the time they were committed. This principle ensures legal certainty and protects individuals from being subjected to punishment for conduct that was lawful when it occurred. By preventing the retroactive application of criminal laws, this protection upholds the principles of fairness and justice. A R TIC L 7.(1) LAW084 "Retroactive" refers to something that has effect or applies to events that occurred before its enactment or implementation. In the context of law, a retroactive law is one that applies to conduct that took place before the law was passed or before a particular legal ruling was made. When a law is retroactive, it can have significant implications for individuals because it means they can be held accountable for actions that were not considered illegal at the time they were committed. This goes against the principle of legality, which holds that individuals should have fair notice of what is prohibited by law and should not be punished for conduct that was lawful when it occurred.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V ROZITA BT MOHAMAD ALI [2018] 9 MLJ 1 MATERIAL FACTS L E GA L IS S U E S In this particular case, Rozita faced the charge of severely injuring Suyanti Sutrinso, her Indonesian maid. On 21 December 2016, it was discovered that the victim had endured critical physical abuse, including being beaten by various objects, scorched with an iron, and scalded with hot water. The maid got major injuries that needed medical treatment at a hospital. Whether applying a recent amendment to the law retroactively, especially concerning criminal offenses committed before the law change, violates the principle of legality under Article 7(1) of the Federal Constitution? The judge had considered various factors such as the severity of the injuries inflicted, the nature of the offense, the lack of defense available to the accused, and the element of public interest. Rozita had originally been ordered to be bound over for decent behavior for five years along with an RM20,000 parole. However, the prosecution filed an appeal against the sentence, claiming that it was lacking considering the seriousness of the offense. Later, the Court of Appeal overturned the initial sentence, siding with the prosecution. Rozita was sentenced to eight years in jail instead for committing severe harm to her maid. RAT O D E CID E N DI According to Article 7(1) of the Federal Constitution “No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed". Laws shall not impose harsher sanctions than would have been available at the time the actions were committed. This implies that individuals cannot be penalised or have their rights violated based on laws enacted after the fact, particularly to target them for previous offences. Based on these case law, Rozita was charged under Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). However, CPC was amended with the insertion of subsection 294(6), which came into force on 01 March 2017. This amendment affected the procedure for certain serious offenses. The Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) argued that the amendment, being procedural, should have retrospective application. Nonetheless, the court disagreed with the DPP's contention, stating that applying the amendment retroactively to serious offenses committed before 01 March 2017, would violate Article 7(1) of the Federal Constitution. Article 7(1) protects individuals against retrospective criminal laws and ensures that no person suffers a greater punishment for an offense than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed. The court concluded that the amendment to Section 294(6) of the CPC, which removed the right of an accused person to be considered for release on a bond of good behavior, should only apply to serious offenses committed after 01 March 2017. As mentioned in this case law, Rozita was discovered commiting unlawful acts on 21 December 2016. The court emphasized that while Parliament can legislate with retrospective effect, such retroactive laws cannot affect vested rights or accrued to a party, even if they pertain to procedural matters. However, the seriousness of what she did outweighs that. Rozita’s actions caused severe harm, and the victim even needed surgery and therapy afterward. ANALYSIS LAW084
DOROSAMY A/L CHINNIA @ ALI BIN ABDULLAH V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2020] MLJU 2257 MAT E RIA L F AC T S LEGAL ISSUES ANALYSIS On 19 August 2018 at about 12.30 pm at KM136.9 North-South Highway, in the southern direction to Pagoh, in the District of Muar, in the State of Johore. The Appellant was driving a green Nissan motorbus with a Malaysian Registration Number BLD1888 from Shah Alam, Selangor to Johor Bahru, Johore. The appellant drove the motorbus onto the rear of the motorcar with a Singapore Registration No. SJM5868T which was driven on the same lane, causing a traffic accident. The accident caused the front fender, left side lights, and the front windscreen of the green Nissan motorbus driven by the Appellant to suffer damage. The motorcar also had its front fender destroyed, the front bonnet severely dented and the back portion of the car wrecked. As a result of this accident, a passenger of the motorcar named Che Normah binti Ismail died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The appellant was charged under section 41(1) Road Transport Act 1987. This incident happened on 19 August 2018 which is before the amendment taken into force on 22 October 2020. According to Article 7(1) of the Federal Constitution “No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed". Laws must not impose greater punishments than those that would have been available at the time the acts were done. This means that individuals cannot be punished or have their rights infringed upon based on laws that are created after the fact, specifically to target them for past actions. So, in this case the appellant should not receive a much worse punishment which is not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years and a fine of not less than rm20000 and not more than rm50000 to punish the appellant because at that time section 41(1) Road Transport Act 1987 had not been amended yet, so the court should follow the provision that was before the amendment made on 22 October 2020. This is because retrospective legislation means that the law is applied retroactively, affecting situations or actions that took place before the law was enacted. So the amendment in this case was inapplicable as the amendment was made after the offence had been committed. Whether the charge under section 41(1) Road Transport Act 1987 that was amended on 22 October 2020 apply to the appellant? As the offence was committed on 19 August 2018, the amendments are inapplicable. The provision as of 2018 reads as follows "imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than ten years and a fine of not less than five thousand ringgit and not more than twenty thousand ringgit" while the amendment provides "imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than ten years and a fine of not less than twenty thousand ringgit and not more than fifty thousand ringgit and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years and a fine of not less than fifty thousand ringgit and not more than one hundred thousand ringgit. RATIO D E CID E N DI LAW084 C O N C L U S I O N R E F E R E N C E In conclusion, 2 cases above explain how protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials that stated in Article 7 (1) of Federal Constitution is essential for upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights. The law is also important to maintain the integrity and fairness of the legal system. This can avoid against governmental abuse of power, make the judicial become more efficient and to maintain the principle of legality where the citizens can rely on to safeguard their freedom and rights Public Prosecutor v Rozita bt Mohamad AlI [2018] 9 MLJ 1 Dorosamy a/l Chinnia @ Ali bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor [2020] MLJU 2257 https://advancelexiscom.uitm.idm.oclc.org/api/permalink/c322adb6-463c4116-bacd-19bcf35c6909/?context=1522468
LAW084 “ NO PERSON SHALL SUFFER GREATER PUNISHMENT FOR AN OFFENCE THAN WAS PRESCRIBED BY LAW AT THE TIME IT WAS COMMITTED ” INTRODUCTION TO MALAYSIAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT GROUP 3 PI005 U04