ISSUES 2: WHETEHER KAMARUDDIN GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE

HIS DEFENCE UNDER THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD

PRINCIPLE OF LAW

Natural justice requires a public body to give the accused a fair hearing, and it is
made up of two smaller elements, one of which is notice. Audi alteram partem
requires notice so that the accused has a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
Notice can be observed by giving the accused a time. Time is one of the elements
that the administrator must observe. The notice served to the accused must not only
include a complete and clear charge but the notice must also give a sufficient time to
the accused to prepare his defence. How sufficient the time depends on the case
and at the same time there is no specific time given to each case. Thus, as a
guideline, the more serious the case is, the more time should be given to the
accused.

This refers to the case of Phang Moh Sin V Commissioner of Police. The fact in
this case was, Plaintiff contested his discharge from Police Force due to the accused
of corruption. He knew of the charge moments before the hearing began. He never
got a copy of the charge. The plaintiff's request for a defence preparation delay was
denied. As a result, it was held that the dismissal was unlawful because insufficient
notice of the charge against him and at the same time no opportunity to defend
himself.

APPLICATION OF LAW

Based on the current case of Mr. Kamaruddin he did not have enough time to
defence himself for the proceeding due to lack of time to prepare. Indeed, he
received the charge latter at the proceeding which it is very impossible to
defence himself. This case is similar with the previous case of Phang Moh Sin V
Commissioner of Police where he only knew what the charges against him were
before the trial began. When he requested that his hearing be postponed so he could
prepare his defence, it was refused. This is similar to the case of Kamaruddin.
Even though Mr Kamaruddin was informed to appear before Disciplinary
Board on 3 December 2021, it is possible to him to prepare his defence since
he received his charge on proceeding. After knew his charge, Mr Kamaruddin
asked for the proceeding to be postponed, but his request was rejected. It is clearly
situation where he did not have sufficient time to defence himself.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Kamaruddin may be able to bring a legal action against the

Disciplinary Committee because it is invalid notice given to him of the charges made
against him.