Dewan Rakyat lulus RUU mansuh hukuman mati mandatori

Dewan Rakyat lulus RUU mansuh hukuman mati mandatori

Sinar Harian

April 3, 2023 18:16 MYT

KUALA LUMPUR: Rang Undang-Undang Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 diluluskan sebulat suara di Dewan Rakyat melalui undian suara pada Isnin.

Rang undang-undang tersebut dibentangkan bagi bacaan kedua dan ketiga dibacakan Timbalan Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri (Undang-Undang dan Reformasi Institusi) Ramkarpal Singh, mencadangkan hakim diberikan kuasa budi bicara dalam menjatuhi hukuman.

Rang undang-undang itu juga mencadang membenarkan hakim pilihan mengenakan hukuman penjara sehingga 40 tahun menggantikan hukuman mati mandatori.

Ramkarpal berkata, Rang Undang-Undang Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 adalah suatu akta 'omnibus' kerana merangkumi pindaan kepada Kanun Keseksaan, Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971, Akta Senjata 1960, Akta Penculikan 1961, Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, Akta Perdagangan Strategik 2010 dan Kanun Tatacara Jenayah.

Ia adalah untuk memansuhkan hukuman mati mandatori, mengubah hukuman yang berhubungan dengan pemenjaraan sepanjang hayat dan sebatan dan mengadakan peruntukan bagi perkara yang berhubungan dengannya.

"Hukuman mati mandatori adalah antara hukuman yang dianggap sebagai kaedah di mana keadilan dapat dicapai terutamanya apabila membabitkan kesalahan kejam.

"Namun tiada kajian lanjut yang dapat membuktikan bahawa hukuman mati adalah langkah pencegahan jenayah terbaik atau berkesan.

"Keberkesanan hukuman mati sebagai satu bentuk pencegahan tidak dapat dipastikan memandangkan terdapat banyak faktor yang mempengaruhi bilangan pendakwaan atau kadar jenayah," katanya ketika membentangkan RUU itu.

Dalam masa sama, beliau berkata, pemansuhan hukuman mati mandatori adalah satu bentuk pemulihan supaya mereka dapat kembali ke masyarakat dan menjadi individu yang dapat berkhidmat kepada keluarga dan negara selepas selesai menjalani hukuman.

Justeru, keputusan kerajaan berkaitan pemansuhan hukuman mati mandatori dilihat sebagai langkah yang tepat dalam usaha kerajaan untuk mewujudkan sistem perundangan yang dinamik, progresif dan relevan dengan keperluan semasa.

"Bagaimanapun, hukuman gantian kepada hukuman mati mandatori perlu setimpal dengan keseriusan jenayah yang telah dilakukan oleh pesalah dan tidak mengakibatkan ketidaksesuaian dengan hukuman lain yang kurang serius.

"Justeru, hukuman pemenjaraan bagi suatu tempoh berserta dengan sebatan dilihat sebagai hukuman gantian yang paling bersesuaian terhadap 11 kesalahan yang membawa kepada hukuman mati mandatori ini.

"Kombinasi hukuman pemenjaraan dan sebatan adalah wajar supaya dilihat sebagai hukuman yang lebih berat berbanding hukuman untuk jenayah lain," katanya.

Sembilan ahli Parlimen mengambil bahagian dalam perbahasan RUU berkenaan.

Mereka terdiri daripada lima ahli parlimen blok pembangkang daripada Perikatan Nasional (PN) iaitu Datuk Mas Ermieyati Samsudin (PN-Masjid Tanah), Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal (PN-Machang), Latiff Abdul Rahman (PN - Kuala Krai), Datuk Ahmad Saad @ Yahaya (PN-Pokok Sena),dan Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim (PN-Arau).

Manakala empat lagi dari blok kerajaan iaitu Teresa Kok Suh Sim (PH-Seputeh), M.Kulasegaran (PH-Ipoh Barat), Abdul ; Chiew Choon Man (PH-Miri), dan RSN Rayer(PH-Jelutong).

https://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/dewan-rakyat-lulus-ruu-mansuh-hukuman-mati-mandatori-413871?utm_source=newsletter-7news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230404%20Newsletter?utm_source=newsletter-7news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230404%20Newsletter

Pemegang Serah Hak (Assignee) lebih berhak daripada pemegang amanah terhadap apa-apa hasil dan kepentingan harta serah hak (assignment property)

 SABAH DEVELOPMENT BANK BHD v. PETRON OIL (M) SDN BHD [2020] 4 CLJ 811

FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; AHMAD MAAROP PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-27-04-2018(S)]
17 FEBRUARY 2020

An assignee Bank who has created an absolute and unconditional assignment with an assignor and has thereby obtained an irrevocable transfer of the latter's legal rights and beneficial interests over a certain third party's contract proceeds, is entitled to recover the remittances and funds due under the said contract. Further, such of its entitlement as a lawful assignee will take precedence and priority over other competing claims to the same proceeds, including, as the case may be, claims by a purported trustee or constructive trustee to the said proceeds. The bank's ability to recover such proceeds at the expense of such trustee cannot at all be unconscionable, as otherwise, the security given by a borrower assignor to a banking institution would be rendered nugatory, or put in jeopardy by a finding of a trust or constructive trust by a third party claiming the same funds.

CONTRACT
Agreement - Sale of goods - Claim for recovery of debt by creditor - Absolute assignment of contract proceeds to bank as security for credit facilities - Effect of absolute assignment - Whether entitlement to recover proceeds transferred to bank - Whether creditor's claim premised on trust and/or constructive trust prevailed over bank's absolute assignment - Whether bank held monies in constructive trust for creditor - Whether freezing of first account and creation of subsequent account affected validity of absolute assignment - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 4(3)

CONTRACT
Assignment - Absolute assignment - Claim for recovery of debt by creditor - Absolute assignment of contract proceeds to bank as security for credit facilities - Effect of absolute assignment - Whether entitlement to recover proceeds transferred to bank - Whether creditor's claim premised on trust and/or constructive trust prevailed over bank's absolute assignment - Whether bank held monies in constructive trust for creditor - Whether freezing of first account and creation of subsequent account affected validity of absolute assignment - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 4(3)

TRUSTS
Constructive trust - Existence of trust - Claim for recovery of debt by creditor - Absolute assignment of contract proceeds to bank as security for credit facilities - Whether creditor's claim premised on trust and/or constructive trust prevailed over bank's absolute assignment - Whether bank held monies in constructive trust for creditor

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgxwHNVzNHQGWqtvjpVLXwGvgvcph

Status Tanah Simpanan Melayu

BEBE SAKIMAH MOHD ASROF v. PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI PERAK [2020] 10 CLJ 413
HIGH COURT MALAYA, IPOH
SU TIANG JOO JC
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: AA-24NCVC-478-11-2019]
21 OCTOBER 2020

Not all Malay Reservation land is necessarily a Malay holding; it could also be a non-Malay holding. It is insufficient for the document of title of a piece of land to only be endorsed with 'Pengisytiharan Rezab Melayu' without the particulars of the land specified. Sections 6(i) and 2(a) of the Malay Reservation Enactment (FMS Cap. 142) ('MRE') provide three steps that must be complied with for a land to be declared, post the commencement of the MRE, a Malay holding. Under the proviso in s. 2(a), no interest shall be deemed to be a Malay holding until a requisition in the prescribed Form A in the First Schedule has been registered against the register document of title for such land.

LAND LAW

Malay Reservations - Malay holding - Registration of property expressly stated as Malay Reservation Land - Presentations for registration by purchaser rejected by Land Office - Whether purchaser Malay - Whether non-Malay could be registered as proprietor of Malay Reservation Land - Whether prohibitions and restrictions against dealings apply to all Malay Reservation Lands - Whether applied to property in question - Whether property Malay holding - Whether Land Office complied with necessary statutory steps to declare property to be Malay holding - Whether mere endorsement of Malay Reservation Land without particulars sufficient for property to be declared Malay holding - Whether purchaser could be registered as proprietor of property - Malay Reservations Enactment (FMS Cap. 142)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgxwKjdvMpKMMqXXqCSHbXkzjtvzh

Kuasa Mahkamah Sivil Terhadap Fatwa

 “Naturally, there is a difference between the making of a fatwa (as in the procedure and law to adhere to) and the substantive contents of the fatwa. As regards the procedure, it necessarily requires compliance with written law and the failure to do so might result in the issuance of public law remedies that can only be issued by the civil superior courts. The contents of the fatwa and their interpretation are a different story and a matter purely for the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts to the extent that it relates to “hukum syarak” or personal law and not matters which objectively might be taken to contradict any written law (Federal or State statutes or even the FC for that matter).”

“Thus, simply put, if the vires of any fatwa or the conduct of the Fatwa Committee is challenged purely on the basis of constitutional or statutory compliance, then it is a matter for the civil courts. If the question pertains to the matters of the faith or the validity of the contents of the fatwa tested against the grain of Islamic law, then the appropriate forum for review or compliance is the Syariah courts.” – per Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ in SIS Forum (Malaysia) v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Intervener) [2022] 3 CLJ 339

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGpFqPVjHMszxSQpXFpnTPsCgrR

Mahkamah Syariah tiada kuasa semakan?

SIS FORUM (MALAYSIA) v. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR; MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR (INTERVENER) [2022] 3 CLJ 339
FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CASE NO: BKA-1-01-2021(W)]
21 FEBRUARY 2022

Section 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 which seeks to give the Syariah courts the jurisdiction and power to hear and decide on judicial review, being a provision which the Selangor State Legislature (SSL) has no power or competency to make, is unconstitutional and void. The substantive jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts is strictly defined by Item 1, State List, Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution; the issue of the absence of the power of judicial review or the power to grant public law remedies in Item 1 aside, it is plain that none of the limbs in Item 1 can be construed as conferring power on SSL to enact s. 66A or to enable the Syariah Court to engage in judicial review. This said, the judicial power of the Federation, of which the 'constitutional' and 'statutory' judicial review are a specie, is by constitutional design exclusively vested in the Civil Superior Courts, as to clothe them with supervisory jurisdiction over legislation passed by any Legislature, as well as the jurisdiction to decide on constitutional issues or to issue public law remedies; the Syariah Courts, on the other hand, for not sharing the same constitutional guarantees of judicial independence as the Civil Superior Courts, are as a matter of constitutional policy incapable of exercising judicial power.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGmvfTvmMfmKnpxcflNWqPqVDvf

“Judicial review is not merely procedural but a substantive and immutable component of judicial power - one which is inherent and which defines the very core function of an independent Judiciary. It is exclusively a judicial power of the civil superior courts.

Reading s. 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 as it stands and upon analysing the basis for judicial review in this country, I find that s. 66A of the ARIE 2003 is unconstitutional and void, as it is a provision which the SSLA has no power to make. I accordingly find that the petitioner has overcome the threshold of the presumption of constitutionality.” – per Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ in SIS Forum (Malaysia) v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Intervener) [2022] 3 CLJ 339

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGpGTBXkhHqnVpLbPjMRJvMzdnG 

Parti Politik Tidak Boleh Menyaman Malu

 LIM LIP ENG v. ONG KA CHUAN [2022] 5 CLJ 847

FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ; MARY LIM FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-25-03-2020(W)]
27 APRIL 2022

A political party such as the MCA in this appeal has no cause of action in defamation. Political parties, as registered societies, have no existence of their own separate from their members and are dependent on their members to sue or be sued; consequently, they do not have the requisite reputation to complain of or to be protected within the spheres of the law of defamation. It is also not right nor is it in the public interest to put the public in fear of a defamation suit by a political party; a political party must not be thin-skinned and must always be open to public criticism.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGpGdjNJnStTZNzRvfhJQRlsnNr

Mahkamah Tinggi juga boleh membuat tafsiran kepada Perlembagaan?

 BERSIH & ADIL NETWORK SDN BHD & ORS v. TAN SRI DATO' HJ MAHIADDIN MD YASIN & ANOR; KHAIRIL NIZAM KHIRUDIN & ORS (INTERVENERS) AND ANOTHER CASE [2022] 7 CLJ 905

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NOS: WA-24-6-02-2021 & WA-24-22-04-2021]
04 JULY 2022

The power to interpret constitutional provisions is not exclusive to the Federal Court. Under the constitutional scheme, the Federal Court is generally a court of last resort for all constitutional questions. It is only in a narrow category of exceptional cases - those expressly stipulated in art. 128(1) of the Federal Constitution - that such questions must be determined by the Federal Court at first instance

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGqQJrPngPbWgkPqjmZBNzXHlKr

Namun boleh bandingkan dengan kes ini.

TEO CHEE KONG v. PP [2021] 8 CLJ 29
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA; RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA; LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: S-06A-18-06-2018]
14 JUNE 2021

The power of the High Court under s. 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is discretionary. The High Court is not duty bound to refer the constitutional questions posed by a party to the Federal Court in all cases. It is also unnecessary for the High Court to proffer any answer, 'negative' or 'affirmative' to the constitutional questions brought before it.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGkbDdlnmvtmmRFbWzTWgQQsNWL

Parlimen tidak boleh membuat perlembagaan baru?

MAHISHA SULAIHA ABDUL MAJEED v. KETUA PENGARAH PENDAFTARAN & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2022] 8 CLJ 697

COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA; AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: W-01(A)-273-06-2020 & W-01(NCvC)(A)-531-09-2021]
09 AUGUST 2022

Parliament must take the necessary measure to ensure that any amendment to the Federal Constitution ('FC') must not result in a new Constitution, especially with regard to fundamental provision; likewise, the court is bound by the enacted laws and must strive to give effect to the intention of Parliament in enacting the laws. Hence, to declare the word 'father' in s. 1(b) Part II of Second Schedule of the FC to include 'mother' would mean to rewrite the FC and the courts must forbid itself from such an interpretation of the law.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGqQcvfprMvctlxHDGLDZjVwFTk

Siasatan Jenayah Terhadap Hakim Mahkamah Perlu Kepada standard yang lebih tinggi

 HARIS FATHILLAH MOHAMED IBRAHIM & ORS v. TAN SRI DATO' SRI HJ AZAM BAKI & ORS [2023] 3 CLJ 653

FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ;
ABANG ISKANDAR PCA;
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH CJ (MALAYA);
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ;
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ;
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ;
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CIVIL REFERENCE NO: 06(RS)-4-07-2022(W)]
24 FEBRUARY 2023

Serving Superior Court Judges are not immune from criminal investigations or prosecution. They need not be suspended or removed before they can be investigated or prosecuted. However, because they are serving judges, criminal investigations against them are subject to a higher standard, in light of the doctrine of judicial independence. If an investigation or prosecution against a serving judge is found to have been commenced for collateral purposes, the courts are entitled, when reviewing them, to set aside or pass any other remedy that counts as a suitably moulded relief. As always, the remedy depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGsltSgSfbGZzgbHDVbzlLjnPsx

Tanggungjawab Lembaga Pengarah Sesebuah Bank

 BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BHD v. ABDUL AZIZ ZAINAL & ORS [2023] 10 CLJ 44

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD ARIEF EMRAN ARIFIN J
[CIVIL SUIT NO: WA-22NCVC-357-06-2018]
04 SEPTEMBER 2023

A prudent, reasonable, honest and competent director ought to refer a major issue to the Board of Directors for consideration, investigation and a detailed deliberation. The failure of the directors of the financial institution in the instant case, to raise the matter concerning the request of the Prime Minister for the sponsorship of a book in a substantial amount of RM15 million to the Board of Directors, fell short of the standards expected of them, in breach of their contractual and statutory duties to the financial institution. The obligation of any members of the Board of Directors, as in this case, shall lie first and foremost to act solely in the best interests of the financial institution. It is not to ensure that any personal requests or demands of any third party are adhered to.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGwHfnDbcNLJFqGWgrvmSrGXttB

Undang-undang Sebagai Mekanisme Penyelesaian Pertikaian

 Undang-undang Sebagai Mekanisme Penyelesaian Pertikaian

Law as Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Kuliah Pada 7 Mac 2011

Bukan Penyelesaian Tapi Pengurusan Pertikaian

Pertikaian adalah perkara yang lumrah dalam penghidupan seharian manusia berpunca dari pelbagai faktor seperti ekonomi, politik, sosial dan juga emosi dan citarasa. Ini adalah kerana masyarakat dan negara berfungsi kerana perhubungan sesama manusia atau antara manusia dengan organisasi/kerajaan atau sesame organisasi/kerajaan.  Oleh itu amatlah mustahak pertikaian ini diselesaikan, kerana tanpa penyelesaian masyarakat dan negara tidak dapat berfungsi dengan baik dan lancar. Dalam masyarakat bertamaddun atau madani (civil society) penyelesaian pertikaian hendaklah dibuat secara yang teratur dan berlandaskan kepada nilai-nilai sejagat ataupun sekurang-kurangnya kepada nilai dan standard yang diterima oleh masyarakat berkenaan. Dalam hubungan ini sejak dari dahulu lagi undang-undang merupakan mekanisme yang utama dalam penyelesaian konflik. Tidak dinafikan terdapat pelbagai lagi cara atau keadah penyelesaian konflik dalam masyarakat dan negara namum undang-undang nampaknya menjadi asas utama penyelesaian kerana proses dan pendekatannya diterima dan diakui baik sama ada secara langsung/rasmi mahupun secara konvension. 

Memandangkan pendekatan undang-undang seperti yang dibincangkan di kuliah yang lalu bersifat menentukan hak serta melihat penyelesaian hanya kepada pertikaian yang dijadikan isu perundangan dan mementingkan keputusan sama ada salah atau benar, maka penyelesaian secara undang-undang dikatakan tidak menyelesai masalah atau pokok pertikaian secara memuaskan. Bahkan kadang-kadang penyelesaian undang akan menyebabkan bertambahnya lagi tekanan/persaingan/persengketaan. Sebagai contoh penyelesaian kes-kes kekeluargaan seperti perceraian atau hak jagaan anak tidak semestinya menyebabkan semua pihak berpuashati dan masalah kekeluargaan akan selesai. Namun pandangan ini mungkin tidak tepat memandangkan emosi manusia itu tidak akan atau sukar untuk menerima sesuatu yang tidak disukainya walaupun kehendaknya itu adalah sesuatu yang tidak wajar atau bertentangan dengan nilai masyarakat disekelilingnya. 

Disebabkan oleh kekurangan dari segi kepuasan ini ahli-ahli sosiologi perundangan tidak mengistilahkan mekanisme undang-undang sebagai penyelesaian pertikaian bahkan apa mereka menganggap apa cuba dilakukan oleh undang-undang untuk mengurangkan masalah atau tekanan daripada pertikaian daripada menjadi lebih parah melalui apa yang diistilah sebagai pengurusan konflik atau pertikaian (conflict regulation/management). Istilah dispute resolution juga dikenali dengan conflict resolution atau settlement.  Manakala istilah dispute proceeding merujuk kepada proses awal penyelesaian pertikaian manakala istilah conflict of laws bermaksud percanggahan undang-undang yang boleh menimbulkan konflik. Dalam perbincangan perundangan conflict laws merupakan satu displin jurisprudens yang mempunyai prinsip-prinsip tertentu. Berasaskan kepada huraian ini dapat difahamkan terdapat tiga elemen dalam penyelesaian pertikaian iaitu pengurusan atau pemprosesan pertikaian, (2) penyelesaian/penyuraian dan (3) kepuasan/pengentasan tension yang menjadi punca kepada pertikaian berkenaan.

Dispute	Managed/Processed/Regulated
	Solved/Resolved/Settled
	Tension Released/Alleviated

Punca dan Tahap-tahap Konflik/Pertikaian

Punca kepada konflik atau pertikaian adalah rasa tidak puashati (grievance) atau penentangan (resentment) kepada pihak lain terhadap sesuatu perkara yang berkaitan dengan hak atau tanggungjawab. Ia juga berpunca daripada persepsi bahawa keadilan tidak berlaku kepada diri seseorang akibat tindakan atau tinggalan seseorang atau pihak yang lain. Dalam pengajian sosio perundangan perasaan atau persepsi ini dikenali sebagai peringkat pra konflik (pre conflict stage). Di peringkat ini perasaan dan persepsi ini hanya terhad kepada satu pihak sahaja atau apa yang dikenali di peringkat monadic. Dalam sesetengah keadaan seperti yang akan dinyatakan nanti perasaan atau persepsi ini akan hilang atau diabaikan oleh pihak merasainya dan tiada konflik akan timbul sungguhpun ianya tidak bermakna masalah diselesaikan. Namun dalam banyak keadaan perasaan dan persepsi pihak yang menderitainya akan berhadapan dengan pihak kedua. Di peringkat ini berlakunya komunikasi antara dua pihak yang akan menzahirkan perkara-perkara yang selama ini dalam perasaan dan persepsi penderitanya. Di peringkat ini konfik dikatakan dyadic di mana pihak yang menderita akan berhadapan atau bersemuka dengan pihak yang dikatakan menjadi punca masalah untuk dizahirkan perasaan ketidakpuashatian tadi. Dalam sesetengah keadaan keazaman atau keberanian pihak yang menderita untuk berhadapan dengan pihak lain sudah merupakan satu perkara yang amat melegakan dan kadang-kadang boleh menjadikan penderita berpuashati dan tidak akan meneruskan lagi tindakannya. Oleh yang demikian dapatlah difahamkan bahawa tidak semua perselisihan faham akan membesar menjadi konflik atau pertikaian penuh (full blown dispute) kerana manusia yang mempunyai emosi dan naluri akan memilih jalan keluar yang tidak semestinya bersifat perundangan. 

Sekiranya konflik di peringkat dyadic ini tidak diselesaikan maka campur tangan pihak ketiga diperlukan untuk menyelesaikannya. Konflik antara kedua-dua pihak ini akan menjadi umum dengan penglibatan pihak ketiga ini atau apa yang dikenali sebagai triadic. Dalam konteks sosio-perundangan pihak ketiga ini terdiri daripada sesiapa sahaja baik secara formal atau tidak formal. Tumpuan kajian sosio perundangan ialah kepada penyelesaian masalah. Di peringkat triadic ini konflik antara pihak-pihak sudah menjadi pertikaian atau dispute yang perlu kepada penyelesaian. Cara dan bagaimana pertikaian ini diselesaikan bergantung kepada faktor-faktor sosial dan akses serta kewujudan institusi yang mengurus penyelesaian konflik. Sebagai contoh dalam masyarakat desa atau tradisional penyelesaian konflik lebih kepada saluran informal manakala dalam masyarakat kota atau moden penyelesaian konflik adalah secara mahkamah atau litigasi.

Instances of Non Appealable High Court Decision

 ANG KA LEONG v. YONG SIEW CHEN & ANOR [2023] 9 CLJ 756

COURT OF APPEAL, KUCHING
SUPANG LIAN JCA; MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI JCA; AZIZUL AZMI ADNAN JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: Q-07-71-06-2023]
29 AUGUST 2023

By the terms of s. 50 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, there are two instances when a High Court's decision is not appealable to the Court of Appeal. Firstly, when the decision is made in the course of a trial. Secondly, when the decision does not dispose of the rights of parties with finality ('second category'). The application for leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court ordering a case to be remitted to the Magistrates' Court for a retrial, which has the capability of reviving the likelihood of attaching a liability upon the applicant, falls under the second category, making the application for leave to appeal liable to be dismissed.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Leave to appeal - Application for leave to appeal against decision of High Court ordering case to be remitted to Magistrates' Court for retrial - Whether decision appealable - Whether decision disposed of rights of parties with finality - Whether decision usurped prosecutorial discretion of Public Prosecutor - Whether High Court's powers of revision conferred by statutes - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 35 & 50

CLJ Bulletin #44/2023

Penghakiman Sah Walaupun Pelantikan Tidak Sah

YONG TSHU KHIN & ANOR V. DAHAN CIPTA SDN BHD & ANOR AND OTHER APPLICATIONS [2021] 1 CLJ 63

FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA30 NOVEMBER 2020
[2020] CLJ JT(15)

The validity of a decision of a court, a judge or a judicial arbiter cannot be collaterally challenged on the ground that the judge's appointment is invalid as, even if his appointment is deemed invalid, his decision is saved by the application of the de facto doctrine which exists to preserve the integrity of judicial decisions. Where therefore the validity of the decision of the apex court and its coram is being challenged on the ground of alleged invalidity or unconstitutionality of the appointment of the Chief Justice who empaneled the court, or for that matter too of the appointment of the President of the Court of Appeal, the argument that the panel is in the circumstances suffering from a coram failure cannot be sustained or assented to; even if the appointment of the CJ or the PCA, as the case may be, were set aside de jure, they were not usurpers in the real sense of the word, as there were some legal basis for their appointments, and therefore, the decisions that they made, whether judicial or administrative, are protected by the aforesaid doctrine, whose primary existence, it bears reemphasis, is to save the integrity of the judgments of the court.

The Effect of Rome Statute?

Malaysia government under previous administration attempted to submit crimes against humanity prosecution to International Criminal Court  (ICC) under provision of the Rome Statute. It was reported that Malaysia had actually ratified the agreement. The attempt or ratification whatever it is, was then withdrew under public protest. The article below which I copied from NST dated 18 July 2020 written by Datuk Dr. Fauziah Mohd Taib whom herself was a diplomat and ambassador to the Netherlands argued that submission to ICC would mean Malaysian courts is subject to review by an international court such as ICC. For this reason she is of the view that countries that have records of interference with other nations such as USA, Russia and China in particular, including the Middle East notably Saudi Arabia dan Egypt are not the party to this treaty i.e. the Rome Statute.

The Role of Mediation: Sharia and English Law Perspective

Shariah and Law Department Guest Talk by Dr.Sobia Abdul Razaq, Senior Lecturer, University of Westminster, UK - Lecture delivered on 3rd August 2015.

Starting from April 2012 divorce petitioners need to attend mandatory mediation to avoid courts litigations. The mediation is done privately where there was about 200,000 cases of separation in a year. This requirement is expected to cut public legal aid cost on the divorce cases. The charge for mediation is only GBP100 - GB150 per hour compared to GBP10K - GBP20K for divorce petition lawyer's fee. Nonetheless the mediation is not successful in the UK particularly among the Muslim who avoid them because of cultural issues. Mediators are not necessary lawyers, although having a legal background is an advantage. Therefore mediation is not meant for highly controversial or high credited risk couple where issues are complicated. Its aim is to assist couple with straightforward or less complicated claims in order to lessen the burden of the court. 

Since the mediation can be done privately, the UK Muslim Shariah Council (founded in 1984 registered as charity) offers the service to the Muslims. This council also undertake several other extra judicial processes mainly in regards to marriage (nikah), divorce (khul'), maintenance (nafkah) and other family related matters with fees by issuing certificates (for example the khul' fee is GBP400). Being a private institution, the Council has no power to enforce its decision and therefore has no standing in the UK legal system. The observation of the decision is mainly achieved by agreement and willingness of the parties involved. Similarly there is no written procedures to conduct hearings and the session is not presided by qualified or trained legal person. The hearings are informal meetings between the couple to seek advice and the end of the session the mediator or "Kadi" would make pronouncement. Since the the council has no enforcement power, financial settlement has to be brought to the Court. But there are also other concerns such as the hearings has no structural foundations that normally related to legal institution such as accountability, transparency and consistency in making decision. Because of these concerns and others Muslim petitioners prefer to go to the Court directly.  

Saudi Aramco World : Jasper Yeates Brinton: an American Judge in Egypt

This is about a story of Judge Jasper Yeates, an American that became one of the famous Mixed Court Judge in Egypt. I came across his name when I was a graduate student at SOAS more than 20 years ago. Mixed Court was perhaps an origins to the Egyptian National Court established soon after the abolition of the Mixed Court in 1950. Together with it was the introduction of Egyptian Civil Code 1949 which was considered by its drafter Profesor Dr. Abdul Razzaq al-Sanhuri included it its provision teachings and influence from the Islamic Sharia. This material is intended for my IUGH6113 class, but everyone is welcome to read and thanks to Saudi Aramco.

Saudi Aramco World : Jasper Yeates Brinton: an American Judge in Egypt