charges in malaysia
Duplicity of charges is an irregularity and not an illegality. Discuss.
The answer in this paper will provide the general rule under Section 163 CPC and the exceptions under Section 153(2) CPC. Section 422 CPC will be discussed whether the duplicity of charges is curable i.e. there is no prejudice against the accused or no failure of justice. The test is given in See Yew Poo (1949) will be laid down to discuss the issues of irregularity and illegality.
Section 163 CPC states that every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge. Every distinct offence is defined as offences are not related to each other. For instance, in the case of robbery and rape which should try in separate charges. In the case of Norzilan b Yaacob (1989), the court held that there were 3 separate charges for the possession of cannabis which found in 3 different parts of the house.
However, Section 153(2) CPC provides the exceptions to the Rule. Charges may be joined if it fell under 2 categories of a) criminal breach of trust (S406 – S409 PC); or b) dishonest misappropriation of money (S403 and S404 PC). It is sufficient for the prosecution to specify the gross sum and the 1st and last dates of the offences. The period must be within 12 months. The case of Sheik Hassan (1940), the court held that 23 offences of criminal breach of trust which each amounting to RM1 could be joined in one charge.
If two or more offences are contained in one charge, the issue is whether the duplicity of charges is a mere irregularity which can be cured under Section 422 CPC or an illegality which cannot be cured. The test is given in case of See Yew Poo (1949) where the court held that:
If a charge contains 2 distinct offences which could have proceeded on 2 separate charges at one trial (i.e. a joint trial) – the duplicity of charges is a mere irregularity which can be cured under S422 CPC provided there is no failure of justice or prejudice against the accused. For
The answer in this paper will provide the general rule under Section 163 CPC and the exceptions under Section 153(2) CPC. Section 422 CPC will be discussed whether the duplicity of charges is curable i.e. there is no prejudice against the accused or no failure of justice. The test is given in See Yew Poo (1949) will be laid down to discuss the issues of irregularity and illegality.
Section 163 CPC states that every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge. Every distinct offence is defined as offences are not related to each other. For instance, in the case of robbery and rape which should try in separate charges. In the case of Norzilan b Yaacob (1989), the court held that there were 3 separate charges for the possession of cannabis which found in 3 different parts of the house.
However, Section 153(2) CPC provides the exceptions to the Rule. Charges may be joined if it fell under 2 categories of a) criminal breach of trust (S406 – S409 PC); or b) dishonest misappropriation of money (S403 and S404 PC). It is sufficient for the prosecution to specify the gross sum and the 1st and last dates of the offences. The period must be within 12 months. The case of Sheik Hassan (1940), the court held that 23 offences of criminal breach of trust which each amounting to RM1 could be joined in one charge.
If two or more offences are contained in one charge, the issue is whether the duplicity of charges is a mere irregularity which can be cured under Section 422 CPC or an illegality which cannot be cured. The test is given in case of See Yew Poo (1949) where the court held that:
If a charge contains 2 distinct offences which could have proceeded on 2 separate charges at one trial (i.e. a joint trial) – the duplicity of charges is a mere irregularity which can be cured under S422 CPC provided there is no failure of justice or prejudice against the accused. For