LAD5043

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE I

ASSIGNMENT:

ASSIGNMENT 1: CRIMINAL COURTS IN MALAYSIA

INSTRUCTOR:
DATO AHMAD ROSLI BIN MOHD SHAM

NO. NAME MATRIC NO.

1. MUHAMMAD KHAIRUDDIN BIN ABD LATIFF 1170607

TUTORIAL: TLB4
SEM / YEAR: 2 / 4
SESSION: 2020/2021
Contents

Discuss the criminal jurisdiction of Courts in Malaysia:...................................................................3

Explain the exception to the general rule for the local criminal jurisdiction of Subordinate Court in
Malaysia............................................................................................................................................4
References.............................................................................................................................................6
1. Discuss the criminal jurisdiction of Courts in Malaysia.

It is very important to know that the Federal Constitution allows the legislative, the executive
and the judiciary to perform their powers. In this balance of power, the judiciary plays an essential
role. It has the authority of hearing and determining civil and criminal disputes, and of pronouncing
on the legitimacy of all federal and state constitutions, legislators, or executives. In Malaysia, the
fundamental premise is that an accused is innocent until a competent tribunal has demonstrated his
culpability which gives an opportunity defend accused individuals via the criminal justice system in
Malaysia. States, especially police forces, are required to preserve peace and order in the public good.
The police are involved in the investigation of a crime and it is the task of the attorney general to
decide whether or not a person should be prosecuted.

In particular, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia provides for the individual's rights and for
the protection of such rights. It also gives an avenue to remedy or to penalise people who have
endured complaints and those who have behaved against the laws of the country. The Constitution
and other legislation allow for the courts for the administration of criminal justice.

The Federal Court is the highest court hierarchy. It is the last appeal court. The jurisdiction of
the court is appeal, surveillance and consultation. This court is made up of the Chief Justice and two
other judges of the High Court or, as decided by the Chief Justice, a more unequal number. The Court
of Appeal has competence to appeal all appeals from lower courts on matters of law or sentencing.
Three judges are appealed to the courts for a ruling. The Court is competent to prosecute all offences
which have the greatest maximum death penalty, and it is also competent to appeal cases of lower
courts.

All offences with the exception of those with a possible death penalty are subject to trial by
the court of sessions. Usually, a judge sits in the court to hear these matters. Meanwhile, the
Magistrate Court is the lowest rung in the judicial structure. The report includes two groups of judges,
namely first-class judges and second-class judges. First-class judges have the legal qualifications to
try all offences punished by up to 10 years' imprisonment or fine 12 whippings. However, their
abilities to inflict penalties of not more then six years are confined to jail.

It is also good to know that the Court's authority to consider cases of robbery under Section
392 of the Penal Code, housebreak, and robbery under Section 457 of the Penal Code, which can be
sentenced to not more than 14 years in jail was enhanced due to the enormous backlog of cases in the
Court of Sessions.

Second class magistrates are often officials with a background in judicial administration and
subordinate court officials. The penalty is limited solely to a maximum sentence of 12 months or a
fine. in criminal proceedings. Interestingly, the First Class Magistrates execute additionally tasks in
youth court to prosecute young perpetrators between the ages of ten and 18. The judge sits alongside
two consultants who hear all the offences, with the exception of the death criminals. The Court shall
be held in the Chambers of the Magistrates, excluding the public. This Court's philosophy is that
young offenders should be restored and prevented from growing as criminals.
2. Explain the exception to the general rule for the local criminal jurisdiction of Subordinate
Court in Malaysia.

In an order to understand the local criminal jurisdiction of Subordinate Court in Malaysia, it is

best to refer Section 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code which stated that:

“Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction it was committed”.

This section clearly explains to us, what is the general rule for the local criminal jurisdiction
of Subordinate Court in Malaysia. Then, to understand what the exception of this general rule is we
can refer to other section that follows which is Section 122 to Section 126 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. Section 122 said that:

“When a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which he has done
and of any consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within
the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done or any such consequence has
ensued.”

Section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code specifies that when a person is suspected of
committing any crimes on the basis of something that has been committed, and of any consequences
that have followed, the offence may, within the bounds of the local authority of which the offence has
been committed, be investigated or prosecuted by a Court. For example, someone was injured within
local jurisdiction of Court A and died thereafter; local jurisdiction of Court B. The offence may thus
be investigated by both tribunals as shown in Section 122 (a)

Then we go to Section 123 which explains us that:

“When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which
would be an offence if the person was capable of committing an offence a charge of the first
mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction either act was done.”

Section 123 shall further establish that if an act is an offence because it is linked to any other
conduct that is likewise an offence or is considered an offence when the person is able to conduct an
offence, an accusation of that offence may either be investigated or prosecuted within local
jurisdiction by a Court. This may be demonstrated by the accusation of the maintaining stolen goods,
in illustration (b), of the same section, which can either be tried by the Court when the commodities
have been taken or have been held or received.

In Section 124 it tells that:

“(1) The offence of having escaped from custody may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the alleged escape occurred or a Court within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the person charged with escaping was apprehended after the alleged escape.

(2) The offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or
tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any part of the property which is subject
of the offence was received by the accused person, or the offence was committed.
(3) The offence of stealing anything may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction such thing was stolen or was possessed by the thief, or by any person who receives
or retains the same knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen.”

In accordance with section 124(1), it specifies the accused may be questioned before either
the Court of Custody where he has escaped or where he has been captured following the escape.
Section 124(2) further stipulates that when the offence was committed or the accused held the
property for the offence involving criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust, it can be
tried. Subsequently, under the same section, paragraph (3) allows for the offence of the stealing
offence, where the property was stolen or received by the defendant or anybody else that knows or has
reasons to think that the item was stolen, the accused may be questioned by the Court of Justice.

We go to Section 125 which about:

If— (a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed;

(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another;

(c) where an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one;
or

(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,

it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

Section 125 provides for an exemption if, under several conditions, the site of the crime is
unknown. Firstly, it is unknown if an offence has been committed in various local communities.
Secondly, an offence is committed in part and in part at one location. Thirdly, if an offence persists in
more local areas than one, and finally if many actions in separate local areas are committed.
Consequently, the court with competence over such local regions can investigate and proceed.

Then lastly to Section 126 which about:

“An offence committed while the offender is in the course of performing a journey or voyage may be
inquired into or tried by a Court through or into the local limits of whose jurisdiction the offender or
the person against whom or the thing in respect of which the offence was committed passed in the
course of that journey or voyage.”

Section 126 further states: an offence perpetrated during a voyage may be investigated or
prosecuted by the Court, inside or within the limits of the jurisdiction of which, during that trip or
travel, a crime is committed against the offender, or a person against whom or in respect of whom the
offence was committed. In other words, it can be tried when the offence happened on a travel.

In conclusion, these exclusions establish a greater authority and jurisdiction over the area, in
which confusion may be expelled and local boundaries may be overlaped when the crime has taken
place in a different way and when they need to be treated differently.
References

Alagan, S. (2014). Jurisdiction of Courts In Malaysia. Selangor, Malaysia: Sweet & Maxwell.
Courts of Judicature Act 1964. (n.d.).
Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593). (As at 1 September 2020).
Federal Constitution. (n.d.).
Penal Code. (n.d.).
Sindu, B. S. (2015). Criminal Litigation Process. Selangor, Malaysia: Sweet & Maxwell Asia.
Subordinate Courts Act 1948. (n.d.).