AKTA KETERANGAN SAKSI KANAK-KANAK PDF

Akta Keterangan (Akta 56) & Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-kanak ( Akta ) (Hingga 5hb Mac ). rates Be the first to write a review. Akta Keterangan (Akta 56) & Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-Kanak ( Akta ). International Law Book Services. Akta Keterangan (Akta 56) & Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-Kanak Author: ILBS. RM PRE-ORDER. Out of stock. Category: Law & Taxation.

Author: Kajikree Yolabar
Country: Georgia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 14 February 2010
Pages: 208
PDF File Size: 11.59 Mb
ePub File Size: 2.19 Mb
ISBN: 980-9-21986-208-8
Downloads: 52062
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mikaktilar

Kidnapping Act – Section 3 – Offence of kidnapping – Grounds of appeal – Whether identification parade flawed and defective – Whether trial kanak-oanak failed to warn himself against accepting evidence of 13 year old victim – Whether test of maximum evaluation and beyond reasonable doubt rightly applied – Whether trial judge erred in law and fact in sentencing – Whether appellate interference warranted – Kidnapping Acts.

Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Offence of kidnapping – Grounds of appeal – Whether identification parade flawed and defective – Whether trial judge failed to warn himself against accepting evidence of 13 year old victim – Whether test of maximum evaluation and beyond reasonable doubt rightly applied – Whether trial judge erred in law and fact in sentencing – Whether appellate interference warranted – Kidnapping Acts.

The appeals were in relation to five appellants who were convicted and sentenced for an offence kwterangan s. Upon receiving the ransom, SP3 was released. The accused persons were arrested and were subsequently identified by SP3 in the identification parade as well kanak-kznak in the dock.

SP3 was 13 years old at the time of incident and 15 years old at the time of giving evidence. The first, second and fifth appellants were sentenced to death, the third appellant was detained under s.

In essence, the issues raised in the appeal by the appellants, inter aliawere: PP [] 3 CLJ It was contended that SP3 and SP10 SP3’s classmate, who witnessed SP3 being dragged into the car were children and the trial judge did not conduct a preliminary inquiry to test the competency of the witnesses as required under ss.

SP3’s evidence had been carefully dealt with according to the law by the trial judge. However, the appellants had not created any reasonable doubt in the mind of the trial judge. Hence, ketrrangan was no reason, on the facts or law, for the court to intervene kanak-kanao the trial judge’s reasoning. In the circumstances, it was a safe decision, thus appellate intervention was not necessary. Rayuan-rayuan ini adalah berkaitan dengan lima orang perayu yang disabitkan dan dijatuhkan hukuman bagi satu kesalahan di bawah s.

Setelah menerima wang tebusan, SP3 dilepaskan. Tertuduh-tertuduh telah ditangkap dan kemudian dicamkan oleh SP3 dalam satu kawad cam dan juga dalam kandang saksi. SP3 berumur 13 tahun semasa kejadian dan 15 tahun semasa memberikan keterangan. Perayu-perayu pertama, kedua dan kelima dijatuhkan hukuman mati, perayu ketiga ditahan di bawah s. Pada asasnya, isu-isu yang dibangkitkan oleh perayu-perayu, antara lain, adalah: Dihujahkan bahawa SP3 dan SP10 rakan sesekolah SP3, yang menyaksikan SP3 diheret ke dalam kereta adalah kanak-kanak dan hakim bicara tidak menjalankan siasatan awal untuk menguji kompetensi saksi seperti yang diperlukan di bawah ss.

Keterangan SP3 telah dipertimbangkan secara teliti menurut undang-undang oleh hakim bicara. Walau bagaimanapun, perayu-perayu tidak membangkitkan apa-apa keraguan munasabah dalam minda hakim bicara.

Maka, tidak ada sebab, atas fakta atau undang-undang, bagi mahkamah campur tangan dalam alasan hakim bicara.

Dalam keadaan tersebut, ia adalah keputusan yang selamat dan campur tangan peringkat rayuan tidak diperlukan. For the High Court judgment, please see PP lwn.

Dangerous Drugs Act – Section 39B 1 a – Trafficking in dangerous drugs – Knowledge – Whether inferred from conduct of accused persons – Whether proven without having to invoke presumption under s.

Presumption – Drug trafficking – Whether knowledge proven without having to invoke presumption under s. Appeal – Findings of fact by trial judge – Misdirection in invoking presumption under s. Ketfrangan three appellants who were Iranian nationals, upon their arrests at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport, were taken to Hospital Serdang where they were subjected to medical examination and foreign objects were detected in each of them.

  ANTONIO BLAY FONTCUBERTA PDF

The discharge of the objects was induced and capsules containing methamphetamine were discharged. The ketterangan were therefore charged under s. At the end of the prosecution’s case, having found that there was mens rea possession, the trial wkta invoked s. Upon maximum evaluation of evidence and applying s. In their defence, the appellants did not deny that they had swallowed the foreign object but claimed that they were not kanak-kamak of what they had swallowed were in fact drugs.

They also contended that they had come to Malaysia to look for employment. At the end of the trial, the trial judge found that the kamak-kanak had failed to raise any reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case and convicted the appellants. The issues that were raised for the appellants herein were, inter aliathat the trial judge had erred in: The appellants did not say that they were forced to swallow the capsules of daksi and neither did they deny to have swallowed them voluntarily.

The conduct of swallowing the capsules of drugs voluntarily would entitle the court to infer knowledge. The appellants, in saying that they were not aware of what they were swallowing, could not set aside the doctrine of wilful blindness because they had the opportunity to find out what they were swallowing. If they chose not to, then the law could not be seen to protect their own folly. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances kamak-kanak this case, even without invoking s.

Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-kanak

The misdirection was of no consequence to the prosecution nor would it prejudice the defence case because it did not offend the law on double presumption as the charge of trafficking had been founded on direct evidence of trafficking under s. As shown in their boarding passes, they were transporting drugs when they were flying from Dubai to Malaysia.

Therefore, the suggestion and submissions for the appellants that a trafficking case was not made out against each of the appellants was devoid of merit. Hence, there was no appealable ketrrangan to warrant interference with the judge’s findings. On a totality of the evidence, the convictions of all the three appellants were safe.

Ketiga-tiga perayu yang merupakan warganegara Iran, selepas penangkapan mereka di Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur, telah dibawa ke Hospital Serdang di mana mereka menjalani pemeriksaan perubatan dan bahan-bahan asing dikesan dalam setiap seorang daripada mereka. Pengeluaran bahan-bahan tersebut didorong dan kapsul-kapsul yang mengandungi methamphetamine dikeluarkan. Perayu-perayu, oleh itu, dituduh di bawah s. Di akhir kes pendakwaan, selepas mendapati wujudnya mens rea milikan, hakim bicara membangkitkan s.

Selepas penilaian maksimum keterangan dan menggunapakai s. Dalam pembelaan mereka, perayu-perayu tidak menafikan bahawa mereka telah menelan bahan-bahan asing tersebut tetapi menyatakan bahawa kterangan tidak menyedari bahawa apa yang ditelan itu adalah sebenarnya dadah. Mereka juga menghujahkan bahawa mereka telah datang ke Kanaj-kanak untuk mencari pekerjaan.

Di akhir perbicaraan, hakim bicara mendapati bahawa perayu-perayu telah gagal membangkitkan sebarang keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan dan mensabitkan perayu-perayu. Isu-isu yang dibangkitkan bagi perayu-perayu adalah, antara lain, bahawa hakim bicara khilaf atas: Perayu-perayu tidak menyatakan bahawa mereka telah dipaksa menelan kapsul-kapsul dadah tersebut dan mereka tidak menafikan bahawa mereka telah menelannya secara sukarela.

Tindakan menelan kapsul-kapsul dadah secara sukarela mewajarkan mahkamah membangkitkan pengetahuan. Perayu-perayu, dalam menyatakan bahawa mereka tidak menyedari tentang apa yang telah mereka telan, tidak boleh mengenepikan doktrin kebutaan sengaja kerana mereka mempunyai peluang untuk mengetahui apa yang ditelan. Jika mereka memilih untuk tidak mengetahuinya, maka undang-undang tidak boleh dilihat melindungi kealpaan mereka sendiri. Keterangn itu, atas fakta dan hal keadaan kes ini, walaupun dengan tidak membangkitkan s.

Salah arahan tersebut tidak memberi kesan kepada pendakwaan dan tidak memprejudiskan kes pembelaan kerana ia tidak melanggar undang-undang anggapan berganda kerana pertuduhan pengedaran telah dibuktikan melalui keterangan langsung pengedaran di bawah s.

Seperti yang ditunjukkan dalam pas masuk mereka, mereka membawa dadah apabila mereka dalam perjalanan dari Dubai ke Malaysia. Dengan itu, cadangan dan hujahan-hujahan bagi perayu-perayu bahawa kes pengedaran tidak dibuktikan terhadap setiap perayu adalah tidak bermerit. Dengan itu, kanak-kqnak ada kekhilafan yang boleh dirayu untuk mewajarkan campur kanak-kahak dalam dapatan hakim bicara. Atas keseluruhan keterangan, sabitan ketiga-tiga perayu adalah selamat.

  AIRTRONICS RD 6000 MANUAL PDF

Khoo Hi Chiang v. Disclosure – Privilege – Information relating to journalist’s source of information – Whether protected from disclosure – Whether journalist may be ordered to disclose source of information – Criteria to be satisfied for ordering disclosure. Privilege – Information relating to journalist’s source of information – Whether protected from disclosure – Whether journalist may be ordered to disclose source of information – Criteria to be satisfied for ordering disclosure.

The third defendant was Joseph, the author of the article. When Joseph was asked to disclose the identities of the sources referred to in the article, he refused to do so as it was alleged that he had promised the sources that their identities would be kept in keterangann.

Hence, the plaintiff made the present application pursuant to s. However, in the akha of this case, more harm than good would result from compelling a disclosure. The ata case did not concern breaches of security keteranga. Hence, it kanak-kana, be more in the public interest for the court not to order Joseph as a journalist to disclose the sources.

Foster [] 2 QB dist. British Steel Corpn v. Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand v. Choy Ching Wan v. Cojuangco [] CLR refd. Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd kdterangan. Pertubohan Berita Nasional Malaysia v. Poh Siew Cheng v. Secretary of State for Defence and Another v. The Attorney General of HongKong v. Kanun Keseksaan kanak-lanak Seksyen – Pemalsuan dokumen dengan niat supaya dokumen digunakan untuk menipu – Elemen-elemen pertuduhan – Sama ada dibuktikan – Sama ada penandatanganan dokumen-dokumen dibuktikan – Sama ada niat untuk menipu dibuktikan – Sama ada kesalahan dibuktikan melampaui keraguan munasabah.

Kanun Keseksaan – Seksyen – Menipu – Niat bersama untuk menipu – Sama ada telah mendorong pelantikan peguam – Sama ada tindakan OKT mendatangkan kerugian kepada seseorang – Sama ada wujud unsur paksaan atau ugutan. OKT2 menghadapi dua pertuduhan bagi kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s.

OKT2, seorang ejen hartanah, diperkenalkan kepada OKT3 yang mendakwa mempunyai akses atau laluan bagi membantu melaksanakan penjualan kawasan kayu balak tersebut. Setelah mengadakan perbincangan, perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut ditandatangani oleh OKT bagi pihak Seri Paduka Baginda berdua dan SP14 bagi pihak syarikat tersebut di mana syarikat tersebut sebagai kontraktor bersetuju untuk membeli kayu-kayu di kawasan-kawasan tersebut.

LAWATAN KE MAHKAMAH SHAH ALAM

Sebagai balasan bagi perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut, SP14 telah mengeluarkan dua keping cek atas nama firma SP9 peguam SP14 dan SP9 kemudiannya telah mengeluarkan empat keping cek. Atas penilaian maksima terhadap keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh saksi-saksi pihak pendakwaan, mahkamah berpuashati bahawa satu kes prima facie telah berjaya dibuktikan terhadap OKT1, OKT2 dan OKT3.

Dalam pembelaannya OKT2, yang telah menandatangani kedua-dua perjanjian tersebut, menyatakan bahawa: Diputuskan melepaskan dan membebaskan OKT1; mensabitkan dan menjatuhkan hukuman penjara tiga tahun bagi setiap pertuduhan pertama dan kedua terhadap OKT2; mensabitkan dan menjatuhkan hukuman denda sebanyak RM15, jika tidak dibayar, penjara enam bulan terhadap OKT3: OKT2 mengakui tidak pernah dilantik oleh Seri Paduka Baginda berdua untuk menandatangani perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut bagi pihak Baginda masing-masing.

Tanpa kuasa yang diberikan oleh Baginda berdua, OKT2 tidak berhak untuk menentukan apa-apa terma dalam perjanjian tersebut.

Fakta bahawa OKT tidak, pada bila-bila masa, memaklumkan kepada SP14 bahawa perjanjian tersebut tidak boleh disediakan kerana dia tiada kuasa untuk menyediakannya, menunjukkan bahawa OKT2 memang berniat supaya kedua-dua perjanjian tersebut ditandatangani olehnya dan pihak pembeli yang diwakili oleh SP Oleh itu, OKT2 sudah tentu sedar bahawa tiada bank yang akan berminat dengan perjanjian yang masih dalam bentuk draf dan belum dimuktamadkan, lebih-lebih lagi jika perjanjian tersebut melibatkan harga jual beli yang tinggi seperti dalam kes ini.