INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

END-OF-SEMESTER EXAMINATION
SEMESTER 2, 2015/2016 SESSION

AHMAD IBRAHIM KULLIYYAH OF LAWS

Programme : Bachelor of Laws Level of : Fourth

Study

Reading Time : 9.00 a.m. – 9.15 a.m. Date : 18.5.2016

Duration : (15 minutes )

Answering Time : 9.15 a.m. – 12.15 p.m. Section(s) : All Sections

Duration (3 hours )

Course Title : Criminal Procedure I Course Code : LAW 4310

This Question Paper Consists of 8 Printed Pages With 4 Questions.

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES
DO NOT OPEN UNTIL YOU ARE ASKED TO DO SO.
Answer one question from each part. For each part please use a separate answer booklet.

REFERENCE(S) ALLOWED
Criminal Procedure, Police Act, Subordinate Courts Act, Court of Judicature Act, Child
Act and Penal Code.

Any form of cheating or attempt to cheat is a serious

offence which may lead to dismissal
Statutes should be free from any form of annotations.

APPROVED BY
 PART A

QUESTION 1

Ali was driving in a motorcar with his wife, Aminah, from his house, at Batu 8, Jalan

Gombak, Selangor to Ong Tai Kim, at Kuala Lumpur, for a dinner. At Batu 7 of Jalan

Gombak, he was signaled by one of the police officers conducting a road block to move

to the side of the road. On inspection, it was found that the vehicle’s road tax had expired

and, worse still for Ali, he had forgotten to bring along his driving licence. Ali pleaded to

the police officer not to issue him with the summon yet as he had called his son to bring

the renewed road tax and his driving licence to him, and it would not take more than 10

minutes for his son to arrive. The police officer then told him not to leave until his son

arrived.

Aminah, who was caught not wearing the seat belt, was asked to sign a Summon but she

refused and even threatened the police officer uttering, “I’ll make sure you never will get

a promotion till your retirement, and you can keep that shit (pointing to the summon)

with you. Mark my words, don’t play-play with me!” The police officer then asked her to

get out of the car, which she did, and further ordered her to join a group of people who

were all strangers to her in a police truck that was parked nearby. She was told to sit

inside the truck quietly and not to leave.

Meanwhile, Ali’s son arrived, and with the documents the police officer allowed Ali to

leave but not his wife. Ali was furious and attempted to get Aminah out of the truck. At

2
that moment, the said police officer handcuffed Ali and placed him in the same police

truck with his wife. Ali’s son, who could not bear to see his parents being huddled inside

the truck, attempted to pull them out, but he too was handcuffed and pushed into the

truck. Again, the police officer reminded them not to leave and told them that he would

explain the reasons why they were detained later as he had then few urgent matters to

attend to as the road block had caused a traffic jam, with few disgruntled drivers and

passengers were already shouting and yelling.

From the facts situation above, comment on the issue/s that might arise in the context of

the rules of criminal procedure. Determine the lawfulness of the action of the police

officer in depriving and restraining the personal liberty of Ali, Aminah and their son, and

the extent, in terms of time duration, to which their personal liberty may be denied to

facilitate police investigation. Consider as well the legal safeguards or rights they may

have and, conversely, those of the police to uphold the law.

(16 Marks)

3
 PART B (Answer any One)

QUESTION 2

Redza, an inspector with the Royal Malaysia Police, acting on information and

accompanied by few of his subordinate officers, raided Abu’s premises without warrant

to urgently look for stolen properties suspected to have been concealed or lodged at the

said premises. Abu and Bakar who were in the premises then, demanded explanations

from Redza and his men for being there, and refused them entry. Redza then ordered his

men to enter the premises by force by breaking the door hence damaging it. Once inside

the premises, Redza told Abu and Bakar not to leave while his men looked for the stolen

items which was not found. Nonetheless, Redza suspected that Abu and Bakar were

involved in some immoral activities and taking dangerous drugs. Redza then ordered his

subordinate officer, Azman, to search Abu for drugs, while another officer, Aminah, to

search Bakar, suspecting that the latter was a woman.

Aminah managed to find some substance hidden inside Bakar’s underwear which she

immediately seized but then she realised that Bakar was actually a man. The police also

found few vapes in the premises and which they seized. However, they did not write the

seized items down as they saw no point for doing so since both Abu and Bakar were

arrested and taken into custody for investigation at the police station.

Determine whether the search and entry of premises, the search done on the persons, and

the seizure of the items, were done according to the currently applicable law.

(17 Marks)
4
 OR

QUESTION 3

(a) Donoghue pleaded not guilty to a bailable offence. The Magistrate asked if he had

RM1000 for the bond, to which Donoghue replied that he only had RM800. The

Magistrates then decided to impose RM800 for the bond, but Donoghue pleaded

to have the amount further reduced to RM600 as he needed some cash to go home

and to pay certain school fees for his children. He told the Magistrate that he

earned a monthly income of RM1400 and was a BRIM’s recipient. The

Magistrate then fixed the bond at RM600; but the Deputy Public Prosecutor

furiously objected to the amount and pointed out to the Magistrates that

Donoghue had another earlier case where he jumped bail.

Briefly, determine the followings with explanations or justifications:

(i) Whether Donoghue is entitled to bail;

(5 Marks)

(ii) The type of bond appropriate in the case;

(2 Marks)

(iii) Whether the bail amount is appropriate.

(5 Marks)

5
(b) Aminah is charged with a non bailable offence. As she is pregnant and has a child

who is still breastfeeding, the judge decides it is best that she is not sent to prison

and accordingly allows her bail. However, she would be electronically monitored

by having an electronic tagging device fixed around her ankle to monitor her

movements. The bail amount is fixed at RM2000 which Aminah pays to the

Court.

Determine the legality of tagging Aminah’s ankle with electronic tagging device

as the condition of granting her the bail.

(5 Marks)

6
 PART C

QUESTION 4

Both Dato' Seri Biaya and Datin Putih Alam are prominent Johore business persons who

were charged for committing criminal breach of trust under section 409 of the Penal Code

involving a sum of RM100 million paid to them by donors at various mosques located in

Johore Bahru. The said amount was supposed to be used to improve the existing old folk

homes and to set up an orphanage in the vicinity of Johore Bahru. The controversies

surrounding the commission of the offence caused great misgivings and dissatisfaction to

the residence of Johore Bahru, especially the donors. The DPP in charge of the Datin’s

case charged her at the Session Court in Johore Bahru. The Dato’, who was arrested in

Shah Alam, Selangor, was instead charged at the High Court in Shah Alam. Before the

Datin’s trial could commence, the Public Prosecutor issued a certificate to the Session

Court in Johore Bahru, pursuant to section 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code, to

transfer the case to the High Court in Shah Alam, citing safety, among other reasons.

Meanwhile, at the commencement of the Dato’s trial, the DPP sought an adjournment on

the ground that the Dato’s and the Datin’s trial should be tried jointly. The DPP showed

the copy of the certificate for the Datin’s case to be transferred to the High Court in Shah

Alam. However, the Session Court Judge refused the DPP’s request and against which

the DPP in Johore Bahru appealed to the High Court in Johore Bahru to have the Session

Court Judge’s decision reversed, arguing that the judge was wrong not to allow the

transfer.

7
(a) Discuss whether the Sessions Court was right not to transfer the case to the High

Court at Shah Alam.

(8 Marks)

(b) Discuss whether the Datin’s case can be heard and determined by the High Court

in Shah Alam jointly with the Dato’s case.

(8 Marks)