- Information
- AI Chat
CASE Review 2
Diploma in Law (DIL1225)
International Islamic College
Recommended for you
Preview text
FACULTY OF LAW AND ENFORCEMENT
INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL RESEARCH CASE REVIEW 2
WAN NUR AISHAH WAN ROSLI (DIL222021)
PUTERI DAMIA AQILAH BINTI ZUBER (DIL222026)
LECTURER : MADAM FATIHAH BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN
DUE DATE : 28th JANUARY 2023
1)The name of the journal :
- Current Law Journal
2)The formal citation of the case :
- OOI CHIENG SIM V PP
3)The date of the decided case :
- 31 October 2022
4)The name of president Court
- Hight Court Malaya,Georgetown
5)The case number
- Criminal application No: PA-44-12-05-
- The list of the presiding judge(s) :
- Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid
7)The Plaintiff :
- Ooi Chieng Sim
8)The Defendant :
- Public prosecutors
- The Referred Statutes
Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing And Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 section 56(1).
Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 25, 30, 31, 35, 84(1).
-Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 12(2), 39B(1), 41B.
⁃ Karpal Singh & Anor v. PP [1991] 2 CLJ 1458; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 183 SC (refd)
⁃ Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2003] 4 CLJ 1 FC (refd)
⁃ Lei Meng v. Inspektor Wayandiana Abdullah & Ors And Other Appeals [2022] 3 CLJ 177 FC (refd)
⁃ Merck KGaA v. Leno Marketing (M) Sdn Bhd; Registrar Of Trade Marks (Interested Party) [2018] 6 CLJ 167 FC (refd)
⁃ Mohamad Ezam Mohd Noor v. Ketua Polis Negara & Other Appeals [2002] 4 CLJ 309 FC (refd)
⁃ Mohamad Ibrahim Kamarudin v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Yang Lain [2018] 1 LNS 59 HC (refd)
⁃ Mohd Fahmi Redza Mohd Zarin lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Kes [2017] 1 LNS 683 HC (refd)
⁃ Mohd Rafizi Ramli v. PP [2014] 4 CLJ 1 CA (refd)
⁃ PP v. Billion Nova Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] 2 CLJ 763 CA (refd)
⁃ PP v. Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 3 CLJ 198 FC (refd) ⁃ PP v. Lau Kee Hoo [1983] 1 CLJ 21; [1983] CLJ (Rep) 336 FC (refd)
⁃ PP v. Multi Electrical Supply & Services & Ors [2022] 5 CLJ 113 HC (refd)
⁃ PP v. Sudesh Ratnarajah & Ors [2021] 6 CLJ 333 CA (refd)
⁃ Rovin Joty Kodeeswaran v. Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors And Other Appeals [2021] 4 CLJ 1 FC (refd)
⁃ Selva Vinayagam Sures v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2021] 2 CLJ 29 FC (refd)
⁃ Siow Chung Peng v. PP [2014] 6 CLJ 423 FC (refd)
⁃ State (Trimbole) v. Governor Of Mountjoy [1985] (IR) 550 (refd)
⁃ Sundra Rajoo Nadarajah v. Menteri Luar Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2021] 6 CLJ 199 FC (refd)
⁃ Tan Hoo Eng v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 893 CA (refd)
⁃ Tan Sri Eric Chia Eng Hock v. PP [2007] 1 CLJ 565 FC (refd)
⁃ Teh Cheng Poh v. PP [1978] 1 LNS 202 PC (refd)
⁃ Teo Chee Kong v. PP [2021] 8 CLJ 29 CA (refd)
⁃ Theresa Lim Chin Chin & Ors v. Inspector General Of Police [1988] 1 LNS 132 SC (refd)
⁃ Wee Choo Keong v. Lee Chong Meng & Anor [1996] 3 CLJ 508 CA (refd)
⁃ Zaidi Kanapiah v. ASP Khairul Fairoz Rodzuan & Ors And Other Appeals [2021] 5 CLJ 581 FC (refd)
- The Facts Of The Case
- Following two separate operations by the Royal Malaysia Police called “Ops Eagle Diamond” and “Ops Eagle”, the applicant was arrested together with seven others on 16 January 2020 on suspicion of being involved in drugs trafficking. On 30 January 2020, they were charged for an offence under s. 39B(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (‘DDA’) for allegedly having trafficked in 4,980g of syabu (‘first charge’). During this time, the applicant was also detained under s. 3(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (‘DDSPM’) for a period of 60 days. On 3 August 2020, the first charge was amended to one for a lesser offence under s. 12(2) of the DDA after the seizure of substances suspected to contain syabu under the first charge turned out to contain no such drug nor any other dangerous drug (‘amended charge’). The applicant and the seven others were then charged for the possession of only 2 methamphetamine. This substance was not part of the substance that was seized under the first charge but was found elsewhere although still within the same premises where the suspected syabu was seized under the first charge. The applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Since s. 41B of the DDA that prohibits bail under certain cases do not apply to an offence under s. 12(2) of the DDA, the applicant was entitled to remain free pending disposal of the trial under the amended charge subject to bail. Despite the granting of bail by the Magistrate, the applicant was re-arrested under s. 3(1) of the DDSPM on 5 August 2020. That detention was to expire on 3 October 2020. Short of one day before 3 October 2020, the applicant was then additionally charged for the FOPA charges. Because of the FOPA charges, the applicant was not entitled to bail as provided under s. 57 of the same Act. As a result of those FOPA charges, the applicant remains an incarcerated man to this day. Additionally, from the time the applicant was first arrested on 16 January 2020, the applicant’s business interest and assets had been subject to various actions including suspension of the applicant’s public listed companies by the Securities Commission and seizure by the authorities’ assets not only belonging to the applicant but also those belonging to the applicant’s wife and his companies (‘seized properties’). Between 18 February 2020 and 10 March 2020, the applicant, his wife and his company filed their respective claims that they are legally entitled to the seized properties. The claims were then referred by the prosecution to the Sessions Court under the s. 32 proceedings. Thus, the application was filed to secure the applicant’s liberty and release of the seized properties.
CASE Review 2
Course: Diploma in Law (DIL1225)
University: International Islamic College
- Discover more from:
