Charges in malaysia Essays

Charges in malaysia Essays Charges in malaysia Essay Charges in malaysia Essay The answer in this paper will provide the general rule under Section 163 CAP and the exceptions under Section 1 53(2) CAP. Section 422 CAP will be discussed whether the duplicity of charges is curable I. E. There is no prejudice against the accused or no failure of justice. The test is given in See Yew Poop (1949) will be laid down to discuss the issues of irregularity and illegality. Section 163 CAP states that every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge. Every distinct offence is defined as offences are not related to each other. For instance, in the case of robbery and rape which should try in separate charges. In the case of Manorial b Yacht (1989), the court held that there were 3 separate charges for the possession of cannabis which found in 3 different parts of the house. However, Section 153(2) CAP provides the exceptions to the Rule. Charges may be Joined if it fell under 2 categories of a) criminal breach of trust (SASS SASS PC); or b) dishonest misappropriation of money (SASS and SASS PC). It is sufficient for the prosecution to specify the gross sum and the 1st and last dates of the offences. The period must be within 12 months. The case of Sheik Hosannas (1940), the court held that 23 offences of criminal breach of trust which each amounting to RMI could be Joined in one charge. If two or more offences are contained in one charge, the issue is whether the duplicity of charges is a mere irregularity which can be cured under Section 422 CAP or an illegality which cannot be cured. The test is given in case of See Yew Poop (1949) here the court held that: If a charge contains 2 distinct offences which could have proceeded on 2 separate charges at one trial (I. E. A Joint trial) the duplicity of charges is a mere irregularity which can be cured under SASS CAP provided there is no failure of Justice or prejudice against the accused. For example, there are offences of the same kind committed within 12 months as provided under SASS CAP, for instance, theft of money and theft of diamond ring, two separate charges of theft can be tried Jointly. In the case of Mohamed Faith (1979), the court held that 4 offences of Rogers on 3 separate occasions were curable under SASS CAP as there was no failure of Justice and it was an irregularity. If the charge contains 2 separate offences which could not have proceeded on 2 separate charges at one trial (I. . Not a Joint trial) the duplicity of charges is an illegality and cannot be cured under SASS CAP. For example, there are two different offences which do not fall under the exceptions in SASS SASS CAP, for instance, rape and theft of money, two distinct offences cannot be tried Jointly. In the case of Yap Low See (1937), the court held that the charges f recklessly or negligently were uncertain which would prejudiced against accused, therefore the charge was held to be ille gal and the trail was a nullity. See Yew Poop (1949), the court held that 2 armed robberies on 2 persons at different times were illegal and not curable under SASS CAP as it prejudiced the accused. A retrial was ordered. Len conclusion, the correctness of the statement, Duplicity of charges is an irregularity and not an illegality depends on the test in See Yew Poop (1949)