Security Offences (Special Measures)
Act 2012 - well, this Act provides for 'special measures' that could be used when it comes to cases where persons are being arrested, detained or tried under certain 'Security Offences".
So what are these "Security Offences"? Well, SOSMA in one of its Schedules sets out a list of these offences which are really offences under the Penal Code, and other Acts.
Does that mean that any time a person is arrested or charged under the 'listed Security Offences', SOSMA automatically comes into play?
Who decides when SOSMA measures could be used? The police...the public prosecutor...{Maybe an order of a High Court Judge should be obtained first...}
'Special Measures' in SOSMA - use all or just use what is really needed? With ESCAR[Essential Security Cases Regulations] in the past, from my experience, the prosecution only used the 'measures' that were justifiably needed - preferring rather to use the more just normal procedures at other times...What about SOSMA?
BAIL - should that ever be denied? Remember, bail is also available for people charged with murder in some cases. It is wrong for Parliament through a Law to deny bail - this is something which must be left to the judges. Noting also that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Bail - can always come with conditions, including restrictions of travel. Bail to be granted or not should be left to the discretion of the court. The object of BAIL is one - that is to ensure that the accused turns up in court on the day of his/her case.
Of course, today it seems that some judges are confused - and see Bail as a means to 'PUNISH' - so we have very high bail sums being set... For the rich not a problem - but for the poor, it is a problem > it may mean the family being more indebted, houses/land sold off, etc.. [In a country, where the minimum wage is RM900, Bail should be no more than 2 times a person's monthly income or less for the poor. Bail money gets stuck in court...and remember the accused also needs monies for his/her defence... so, setting a high bail also means affecting one's right of defence.
The section that deals with Bail is SOSMA is a joke - Why is special preference given with regard to bail to women, young persons, and the 'sick''?
The use of the word 'shall' also makes it mandatory - better is the word 'will' , and maybe more conditions be placed for when bail may not be granted - not merely 'charged with a security offence'. This recent SOSMA case highlights just this problem...Surely someone who just made a lot of police reports do not deserve to be denied bail....compared maybe to some other who had bombed or shot many people...
(1) Bail shall not be granted to a person who has been charged with a security offence.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1)-
(a) a person below the age of eighteen years;charged with a security offence, other than an offence under Chapter VIA of the Penal Code [Act 574] and the Special Measures Against Terrorism in Foreign Countries Act 2015 [Act 770], may be released on bail subject to an application by the Public Prosecutor that the person be attached with an electronic monitoring device in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.
(b) a woman; or
(c) a sick or an infirm person,
Reporters and the media can sometimes confuse us. What does the heading 'Khairuddin and Chang cannot be charged under Sosma...' mean?
We really must wait for the written judgment of this case to understand what really happened
November 18, 2015 MYT 9:36:08 PM
Khairuddin and Chang cannot be charged under Sosma, given bail
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has
ruled that Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan and his lawyer Matthias
Chang cannot be charged under the Security Offences (Special Measures)
Act 2012 over alleged sabotage of financial services.
They were also granted bail of RM10,000 each but ordered them to surrender their passports.
Following this decision, Justice Mohd Azman Husin ordered the case to be transferred back to the Sessions Court for trial.
Attorney General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali said he would appeal the ruling in the Court of Appeal.
Chang and Khairuddin, the former Batu Kawan Umno division
vice-chairman were charged on Oct 12 with attempting to sabotage
Malaysia's banking and financial services in several places overseas.
Magistrate Siti Radziah Kamarudin had on Oct 23 transferred the matter to the High Court.
Khairuddin and Chang allegedly committed the offence at five locations from June 28 to Aug 26, this year.
Both face a maximum of 15 years' jail under Section 124L of the Penal
Code (Act 547) read together with Section 34 of the same Act upon
conviction.
The locations are the office of the France Economic and Financial
Crimes Division chief in Paris; Charing Cross Police station, London,
United Kingdom; office of the Switzerland Attorney General in Bern;
WaiChan Police station, Hongkong and Cantonment Police Headquarters,
Singapore.
On Nov 3, the Federal Court ordered the High Court to decide if Chang and Khairuddin could be tried under Sosma.-[ Star, 18/11/2015
Related:-
No comments:
Post a Comment