Article 7 basically deals with Protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials.

The
reason of such prohibition can be found from the decision made in the case of Liyanage v The Queen .In
the case stated above, it was observed that it is unfair to punish a person for doing something which he
could not have know during the commission

Fact : Douglas Liyanage, was a former Sri Lankan civil servant. In 1963 he was named as the first accused
of the attempted coup d'état in 1962 by the state prosecution. It was claimed by the state that he was
the mastermind behind the attempted coup d'état.

Even though he was convicted along with 11 others accused in 1963, the Privy Council, in its ruling given
in December 1965, held the Special Act of 1962 ultra vires of the Ceylon constitution and said that the
Act had denied fair trial. According to the Privy Council, the law had been specially enacted to convict
the men; under trial they did not have the protections that they would have had under general criminal
law. It acquitted all the eleven. Liyanage was charged by a law retrospectively.

In the case of Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia , it was held that Article 7 consist of two limbs :
Protection from retrospective creation of offences and Protection from retrospective increase in the
punishment for existing offences.

Nevertheless, Article 7(1) is only applicable to substantive laws and as such retrospective alteration to
procedural laws is not within the protection offered by the provision. In the case of Gerald Fernandez v
Attorney-General Malaysia, defendant being tried in Singapore for Corruption, but later being extradited
to Malaysia.The court held that extradition of Criminal offence after it has been committed is not
contrary to Article 7 (1).

Lim Sing Hiaw v Public Prosecutor Fact : the accused had been charged under ISA for possession of
firearms. The trial however had been conducted under Emergency (Criminal Trials) Regulations, 1964 in
which the procedural law had been passed after the crime had been committed. The accused plead the
he had been punished under the law which was not in existence during the crime was committed, thus it
contravene with Article 7.

Held : Appeal dismissed. Since Emergency (Criminal Trials) Regulations, 1964 is only procedural law,
therefore its not in violation of Article 7 of FC.

Chua Han Mow v Superintendent of Pudu Prison. Fact : Extradition of fugitives; application of Extradition
treaties under the Malaysian context. Held : Syed Othman FCJ ; Article 7(1) did not prohibit retroactive
legislation on extradition for such a law was not penal in nature but rather procedure for extradition.

Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ismail, a new law which removed the Judge’s discretion was in breach of
Article 7. Here, the accused was tried under the old Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 which gave the trial
Judge discretion over the range of punishments prescribed for drug trafficking. Under the new law, the
death penalty was mandatory.

Nordin Yusmadi bin Yusoff v Pendakwa Raya, The appellant was convicted for statutory rape and
sentenced to detention in Henry Gurney School. He served the punishment and was to be released on
reaching the age of 21. It was only this time that the appeal lodged by the prosecution was heard and he
was sentenced by the High Court. Held : COA : such sentence was in breach of Article 7(1).
 Article 7(2) is designed to prevent repeated trials and has incorporated the common law pleas of
autrefois acquit (the accused has already been acquitted of the offence) and autrefois convict (the
accused has already been convicted of the offence).

In order to invoke protection under this provision, questions need to be asked : Whether there has been
convictions and acquittal ; and the meaning of the same offence. Apart from exclusion of application
pertaining to Procedural law, the cases decided have also laid down more exceptions; where protection
under Article 7 (2) could not be invoked.

Fan Yew Teng v Public Prosecutor, Article 7(2) does not apply if the previous trial was declared a nullity
because there is in fact no trial in such a situation. PP v Teh Cheng Poh, It also does not apply if the
accused is charged with a different offence even if the new charge is based on the same facts. PP v
Musa,Not apply to an accused who has been subject to preventive detention for such was not a
prosecution or trial.

PP v Yeap Hock Seng. Held : Trial and acquittal were no bar to administrative detention. Mohamed
Yusoff bin Samadi v Attorney General of Singapore. A teacher was acquitted of using criminal force but
was subsequently put before a domestic disciplinary proceeding. It was held that this is not
contravening Article 7.

However in the case of Zakaria Abdul Rahman v Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia , It was held that Article
7(2) applies when a person is put before two disciplinary proceedings on the same set of facts. Principles
laid down by Arifin Zakaria J in the abovementioned case; Doctrines of autrefois convict or acquit apply
to disciplinary proceedings , One could not put to other proceeding based on the same set of facts.