LIM GUAN ENG V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2000 2

Topics: Appeal, Court, Judge, Supreme court, Jury, Sedition / Pages: 32 (11897 words) / Published: Jun 22nd, 2015
Malayan Law Journal Reports/2000/Volume 2/LIM GUAN ENG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - [2000] 2 MLJ 577 - 18 June 1999

22 pages

[2000] 2 MLJ 577

LIM GUAN ENG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

FEDERAL COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
EUSOFF CHIN CHIEF JUSTICE, WAN ADNAN CJ (MALAYA) AND ZAKARIA YATIM FCJ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS M05-3 OF 1998, M-05-4 OF 1998 AND M-05-5 OF 1998
18 June 1999

Criminal Law -- Malicious publication of false news -- Detention of under-aged girl published as 'imprisonment' -- Presumption of malicious publication, rebuttal of -- Test applicable -- Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 s 8A(1)

Criminal Law -- Sedition -- Publication of false news -- Conviction on uncorroborated evidence of one witness -- Whether witness was corroborated by own former statement -- Seditious Act 1948 s 6(1) -- Evidence Act 1950 ss 73A & 157

The appellant was charged with two offences. The first charge was under s 8A(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 for maliciously publishing false news in the form of a pamphlet entitled 'Mangsa Dipenjarakan'. The second charge was under s 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 for making a speech which contained seditious words. Both charges were with regard to the non-prosecution of an alleged rape case involving Tan Sri Rahim Thamby Chik with an under-aged girl. The High Court found the appellant guilty of both charges, convicted and fined him (see [1998] 3 MLJ 14). The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against his convictions and sentences while the Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentences. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeals against convictions and sentences but allowed the Public Prosecutor's cross-appeals and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment (see [1998] 3 MLJ 14). The appellant appealed. Counsel submitted, inter alia, that s 6(1) of the Seditious Act 1948 does not permit conviction of an offence under s 4 on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. Therefore, according to him,

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Public Service 2000
  • eng 2
  • Guan Yim
  • R. V. Vaillancourt
  • R V Campbell
  • R. V G R. V R House of Lords 16 October 2003
  • Bush v. Gore, 2000
  • Lims
  • A V R Essay
  • Mr Guan