ANSWER SHEET

Student ID 1201100573 Subject Code PCC0012

Lecture Section T6/L1 Lecturer Name Nur Akma Binti Mohd Dali

QUESTION MARKS* HONESTY PLEDGE

* I pledge on my honour that I will neither give nor receive any
unauthorised aid on the examination.
I will not copy, exchange or share my answers of this examination
from/with other person(s) during this examination.

By accepting this pledge, I acknowledge that as a student of

Multimedia University, I am expected to conduct myself in a manner
that exemplifies honesty, integrity, and good character.

JITHENDRAN
(Student’s Signature)
TOTAL*
*for Lecturer usage.

YOUR ANSWER BEGINS HERE.

QUESTION 1
A) In Non-bailable offences, under section 388 of the CPC, the Court has full power to
grant bail Except in situations punishable by death or life imprisonment. However, it is
essential to exercise the full discretion to give or deny a bail under judicial authority. A
number of factors are considered by the judge, including escape possibilities, avoidance of
further offences and the obstruction of criminal investigations. Further dividing offences
which cannot be leased into two groups may be created. If the crime is not punishable by
death or life imprisonment, then the courts can grant bail. Except where the offence is
punished with death or life sentence, bail shall be excluded but for one: there is no fair
justification for the offence of the defendant; or two: the defendant is a woman, is a child
under age 16 or is an ill person or is an infirm. In the case of no response, the bail may then
be issued if it fulfils the guidelines established for public prosecutor v Wee Swee Siang, if

Page 1 | 6
 ANSWER SHEET

Student ID 1201100573 Subject Code PCC0012

Lecture Section T6/L1 Lecturer Name Nur Akma Binti Mohd Dali

this offence is not punishable of death/life imprisonment. We will not get through the rules,
but the courts ought to weigh matters such as the nature of the crime and whether the
perpetrator will flee.

An Unbailable Offence is One to be covered by a statutory clause of written legislation,

which states, in spite of any written law or code of law to the contrary, that bail shall no
longer be given to a convicted person charged with a particular crime. Examples of such
provisions and the effects they have on certain offences are discussed as follows: Section
12 of Firearm (Increased Penalties) Act (FIPA) 1971, Section 41B of Dangerous Drug Act
(DDA) 1952. The relevant cases which can be an example are PP v Yap Sooi Kim (1989) 1
MLJ 44, Leong Siew Hoong v PP (1988) 1 MLJ 396 and PP v Ilamaran (1992) 1 MLJ 672.

B) The omission to do, not move, failure, and refusal to act are equivalent to failure. This
problem needs to be addressed by S 32 PC: ‘an act has done extend also to illegal
omissions and S 43 PC: The word “illegal” or “unlawful” is applicable to everything which
is an offence, or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action. ”
Whatever it is ‘illegal’ for a person to omit”. Whether he is said to be “legally bound” (to
perform). Liable only if it is an illegal omission. For an example, S 289 PC: Negligence
with respect to any animal “Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order
with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to
human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal, shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may
extend to two thousand ringgit or with both”.
Failure to act is an offence Statutory duty imposed by a criminal statute. Can stand solo (a
crime by itself). LEE SAI YAN v PP (1980) unreported S 34(g) of the Factories Act 1973.
No individual shall allow someone to access any enclosed space in this situation. If he

Page 2 | 6
 ANSWER SHEET

Student ID 1201100573 Subject Code PCC0012

Lecture Section T6/L1 Lecturer Name Nur Akma Binti Mohd Dali

doesn't wear the proper device. The accused was found guilty of having no boredom by the
wearing of any breathing device under S 81(12) Factories Act 1973.Failure to act which is
prohibited by law. Prohibited by statute is not inherently an offence. The constitutional
obligation levied under civil law. It may not be enforced, but only establish legal
responsibility if it is not enforced by statute. Can't stand alone and Such penal laws such as
S.304A PC for negligent act and S.92 of Law Reform Marriage and Divorce Act 1976-the
obligation of the spouse to provide child care must be indicted. Failure to provide
maintenance is not a criminal offence. It may be murder if the child died as a result of this
mistake. The parent may be sued under S.304A for negligently caused death. Cases
applicable to this Section are DE'SOUZA v. PASHUPATHI NATH SARKAR (1968) Cri
LJ 405.Failure to act which furnishes ground for a civil action. A responsibility is
performed on the convicted. This cannot stand alone though, since it only creates legal
responsibility it's allowed to go along with the penal provisions. Under the following cases,
this obligation emerges, Special Relationships PRAKASH (1961) SC 1782 (husband &
wife) Omit to provide food to his wife, Duty assumed on a voluntary basis (expected
assistance) R v INSTAN [1893] 1 QB 450 Omit the food to his aunt.

Question 2
According to Article 5(1) of the federal constitution states that “ No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with the law. Studies of the word
law show that here the word "individual" represents the people of Malaysia while
analyzing the fundamental meaning of the terms used here. In this case, Michael is entitled
to the liberty referred to in Article 5(1) of the FC. The term of life here is the meaning and
value of human life. Without simple needs such as food, human life is never full. Water,
shelter, and rights (freedom of person) are unwanted suppression of human life. Personal
liberty as mentioned here applies to an individual possessing the same rights as the law

Page 3 | 6
 ANSWER SHEET

Student ID 1201100573 Subject Code PCC0012

Lecture Section T6/L1 Lecturer Name Nur Akma Binti Mohd Dali

says. Michael has been married as a Malaysian citizen and is obliged, in accordance with
the constitution, to obtain and exercise his rights.
Art. 5(1) will not ask for mere existence to be expressed as "living." It includes all the
ways of which the degree of association within a unit is a part of life itself and people are
responsible for the form of life quality. The region units the right hunting and profitable
jobs and the benefits our nation can provide to its people. Their benefits are to be obtained.
It needs the right measurement in an extremely stable and contamination-free setting. In
this situation, if Michael planned to settle with Ashley in this country, he has several
schemes for his everyday work only because he is a foreigner in terms of wages, and
benefits are not used negatively. Still then, as in the case of Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya
Perkhidmatan Pendidikan, he has the right to challenge his working environment. In
policing nearly every legislation and article on human rights, the government of modern
times has been directly interested, and this may be a motivator for Michael to experience
basic freedoms as a foreigner in Malaysia.

Question 3
A) John's offence is a bailable offence according to Article 309 of the Penal Code.
Delinquency is granted in accordance with Section 2 of the Criminal Procedural Code
which stipulates "Delinquency" means an offence which is liable as a bailable offence
under the First Schedule or which is currently rescued by some other law and "non-
delinquency" means some other offence. Bail ensures that, to ensure that the accuser is
brought back to justice, the court gives the victim temporarily freedom from police
custody. It is necessary for courts to remember in accordance with Section 387 of the
Criminal Procedural Code that it is not the court's power to issue bail, but the accused's
right to a bail. For penal code offences, those which can be rendered and not leased under

Page 4 | 6
 ANSWER SHEET

Student ID 1201100573 Subject Code PCC0012

Lecture Section T6/L1 Lecturer Name Nur Akma Binti Mohd Dali

the 5th column, 1st schedule, can be classified while those that are rendered and non-levant
in the Last Portion, 1st programme can be identified for non-PC offences.

B) Regardless of whether there is an opportunity for Robert to apply for private guard.
For this situation, we may see that Robert had driven Thomas away because of the way
that Robert was assaulted by him with a blade. From my perspective, the activity of Robert
will be considered as "self-preservation". As indicated by Area 96 of the Correctional Code
(PC), nothing is an offense which in the activity of the privilege of private guard. Besides,
Segment 97 of PC gives that each individual has the correct subject to Area 99 to safeguard
his own body and the body of some other individual, against any offense influencing the
human body. Subsequently, from both of the arrangements, we may infer that if an activity
was done to shield himself from any peril, at that point it was anything but an offense.
Also, Segment 102 PC gives that one can possibly raise the privilege to private guard when
there is a sensible fear of peril, and the correct continues inasmuch as the danger exist.
Concerning this case, we may saw that there is a sensible fear of death since Thomas had
assaulted Robert with a blade and to save himself, Robert had no real option except to
drove Thomas away which coming about to Thomas passing. With respect to this matter,
we may see on account of PP v Dato Balwant Singh. For this situation, the expired was a
street menace who follow the denounced vehicle after he got maddened reasoning that the
charged sound at him. At the point when the charged draw over, the perished got an
enormous and weighty stick and compromised the blamed. Even after the charged showed
the expired a firearm and discharged an admonition fired, the perished didn't yield and kept
on acting all the more forcefully. Dreading of his life, the denounced discharged the
firearm and caused the passing of the perished. The court held that the privilege of private
guard is allowed to the blamed in light of the fact that there is sensible trepidation for
damage to the body. Accordingly, the court found that the privilege of self-protection

Page 5 | 6
 ANSWER SHEET

Student ID 1201100573 Subject Code PCC0012

Lecture Section T6/L1 Lecturer Name Nur Akma Binti Mohd Dali

under Segment 97 and 100 of the PC was applied as the expired had an enormous stick that
was adequate to cause appalling damage. Same goes with this case, the way that Thomas
was assaulting Robert utilizing a blade was sufficient to show that there is adequate to
cause offensive damage and there is sensible misgiving of risk as what have been
expressed under Area 102 of the PC. As an end, Robert reserved the option to apply for
private protection.

Page 6 | 6