- Information
- AI Chat
CPC Tuto 3 Arrest
CPC Tutorial 3 Arrest
Course
Criminal Procedure II (LAD5073)
108 Documents
Students shared 108 documents in this course
University
Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
Academic year: 2022/2023
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
Universiti Sains Islam MalaysiaRecommended for you
Preview text
Issue:
Whether the arrest made by Rahmat, haydi and Fizie towards Jinji are permissible by the law under Section 27(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Law:
- Section 27 of the CPC, any private person can arrest any person who in 'in his view' committed a non-bailable and seizeable offence and without any delay hand over the person to the police officer in present or the nearest police station.
- PP v Sam Hong Choy (1996) 1 CLJ 514, the private person did not see the actual robbery but rather heard someone shouted “tolong kejar perompak”. The High Court held that “in his sight” of the robber within close proximity to the crime, the private person is allowed to arrest the robber as long as the offence is non-bailable and seizeable.
Application:
- According to Section 27 of the CPC, they may make an arrest to the person as it is a non- bailable and seizeable offence.
- According to PP v Sam Hong Choy, Rahmat is allowed to arrest the person as he was “in his view” which he is in close proximity to the crime scene.
- However, Fizie and Haydi did not fulfilled the requirement of the arrest as they did not heard the shout and the offence was not “in their view”.
Conclusion:
To conclude, the arrest made by Rahmat are allowed under 27(1) of the CPC as he was “in his view” of the offence happened, however, Fizie and Haydi were not entitled upon the law and only allowed to help rahmat.
Was this document helpful?
CPC Tuto 3 Arrest
Course: Criminal Procedure II (LAD5073)
108 Documents
Students shared 108 documents in this course
University: Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
Was this document helpful?
Issue:
Whether the arrest made by Rahmat, haydi and Fizie towards Jinji are permissible by the law under
Section 27(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Law:
- Section 27 of the CPC, any private person can arrest any person who in 'in his view'
committed a non-bailable and seizeable offence and without any delay hand over the person
to the police officer in present or the nearest police station.
- PP v Sam Hong Choy (1996) 1 CLJ 514, the private person did not see the actual robbery but
rather heard someone shouted “tolong kejar perompak”. The High Court held that “in his
sight” of the robber within close proximity to the crime, the private person is allowed to
arrest the robber as long as the offence is non-bailable and seizeable.
Application:
- According to Section 27 of the CPC, they may make an arrest to the person as it is a non-
bailable and seizeable offence.
- According to PP v Sam Hong Choy, Rahmat is allowed to arrest the person as he was “in his
view” which he is in close proximity to the crime scene.
- However, Fizie and Haydi did not fulfilled the requirement of the arrest as they did not heard
the shout and the offence was not “in their view”.
Conclusion:
To conclude, the arrest made by Rahmat are allowed under 27(1) of the CPC as he was “in his view”
of the offence happened, however, Fizie and Haydi were not entitled upon the law and only allowed
to help rahmat.
