Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS AND ANTI-SMUGGLING OF IMMIGRANTS – CONSTITUTIONAL CLASH: EXAMINING LEGISLATIVE OVERREACH IN EVIDENCE LAW – PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE

Since the formatting for WordPress blocks was skipped, I’ll provide it here as requested:

ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIO

X is charged with smuggling three immigrants under Section 12 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (“ATIPSOM 2007”). The prosecution’s case relies on several pieces of evidence, including a deposition by one of the immigrants recorded under Section 61A of ATIPSOM, which states that such a deposition shall be admitted as prima facie evidence without further proof. X contended that this provision violated the doctrine of separation of powers under Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution (“FC”), asserting that Parliament overstepped its bounds by determining what constitutes prima facie evidence.

KEY ISSUES

  1. Is Section 61A of ATIPSOM unconstitutional for encroaching on judicial power?
  2. Did Parliament violate the separation of powers doctrine under Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution by legislating what qualifies as prima facie evidence?

LEGAL PRINCIPLES & LAW

  • Section 61A ATIPSOM 2007 mandates that depositions are admitted as prima facie evidence without further proof.
  • Article 121(1) Federal Constitution ensures the separation of powers between the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches.
  • Article 4(1) Federal Constitution provides that the FC is the supreme law of Malaysia.
  • Section 12 ATIPSOM outlines penalties for smuggling of persons.

APPLICATION AND SENTENCING

The appellant’s claim was that Section 61A of ATIPSOM undermines judicial independence by predetermining the status of evidence, which should be the purview of the courts. However, the court rejected this argument for the following reasons:

  • Section 61A of ATIPSOM does not usurp judicial power because courts still have the authority to assess and evaluate the evidence independently, thus preserving judicial sovereignty.
  • The provision does not relieve the prosecution of its duty to establish a prima facie case; it simply allows certain evidence to be initially accepted as credible.
  • Prima facie evidence remains subject to rebuttal and is not considered conclusive proof.

REFERENCE CASES

  • PP v. Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4 CLJ 209
  • Taiwan Chief Precision Technology Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Li Yo Electronics Sdn Bhd) v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2014] 4 CLJ 23
  • PP v. Ketheeswaran Kanagaratnam & Anor [2024] 2 CLJ 341
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们