CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure - Accomplice - Meaning of - Abortion
Mary Shim v Public Prosecutor [1962] MLJ 132, Court of Appeal, Kuala Lumpur In this case, the appellant was charged with procuring an abortion for another woman. The woman who had the abortion was not charged with any offence. The appellant appealed against her conviction, arguing that the woman who had the abortion was an accomplice and her testimony should not have been admitted in evidence.
The Court of Appeal held that the woman who had the abortion was not an accomplice. The Court held that an accomplice is a person who is "aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence". The Court found that the woman who had the abortion did not fall within this definition. She did not do anything to help the appellant procure the abortion. She simply asked the appellant to procure the abortion for her.
The Court of Appeal also held that the woman who had the abortion was not a "person interested in the result of the trial". The Court held that a "person interested in the result of the trial" is a person who stands to gain or lose by the outcome of the trial. The Court found that the woman who had the abortion did not stand to gain or lose by the outcome of the trial. She was not a party to the prosecution and she did not have any financial or other interest in the outcome of the trial.
The Court of Appeal therefore allowed the appeal and quashed the appellant's conviction.
Criminal Procedure - Accomplice - Meaning of - Agent provocateur, whether accomplice
Teja Singh & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1930] MLJ 71, High Court, Johore Bahru In this case, the appellants were charged with robbery. The prosecution case was that the appellants were recruited by a police officer to rob a shop. The police officer had posed as a potential customer of the shop and had arranged to meet the appellants at a nearby location. The appellants then went to the shop and robbed it.
The appellants argued that the police officer was an agent provocateur and that his actions had induced them to commit the robbery. An agent provocateur is a person who incites another person to commit a crime in order to enable the police to arrest and prosecute that person.
The High Court held that the police officer was not an agent provocateur. The Court held that the police officer had not induced the appellants to commit the robbery. The appellants had already decided to rob the shop before they met the police officer. The police officer had simply provided them with the opportunity to carry out their plan.
The High Court therefore convicted the appellants.
Criminal Procedure - Accomplice - Meaning of - Jointly charged - Joint trial
Goh Ah Yew v Public Prosecutor [1949] MLJ 150, Court of Appeal, Federation of Malaya In this case, the appellant and another man were jointly charged with robbery. The prosecution case was that the two men had robbed a shop together. The appellant argued that he should not be tried jointly with the other man because he was not an accomplice to the robbery.
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant could be tried jointly with the other man. The Court held that the two men were jointly charged with the same offence and that they were both alleged to have been involved in the robbery. The Court found that it was not necessary to prove that the appellant was an accomplice to the robbery in order to convict him.
The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appellant's appeal.
Criminal Procedure - Accomplice - Meaning of - Police informer, not an accomplice
Public Prosecutor v Gurbachan Singh [1964] MLJ 141, High Court, Alor Star In this case, the appellant was charged with murder. The prosecution case was that the appellant had killed the victim in order to rob him. The appellant argued that the prosecution's case was based on the evidence of a police informer and that this evidence should not be admitted in evidence because the police informer was an accomplice.
The High Court held that the police informer was not an accomplice. The Court held that an accomplice is a person who is "aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence". The Court found that the police informer did not fall within this definition. He did not do anything to help the appellant commit the murder. He simply gave information to the police about the appellant's plans.
The High Court therefore allowed the appeal and quashed the appellant's conviction.
Mary Shim v Public Prosecutor [1962] MLJ 132, Court of Appeal, Kuala Lumpur In this case, the appellant was charged with procuring an abortion for another woman. The woman who had the abortion was not charged with any offence. The appellant appealed against her conviction, arguing that the woman who had the abortion was an accomplice and her testimony should not have been admitted in evidence.
The Court of Appeal held that the woman who had the abortion was not an accomplice. The Court held that an accomplice is a person who is "aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence". The Court found that the woman who had the abortion did not fall within this definition. She did not do anything to help the appellant procure the abortion. She simply asked the appellant to procure the abortion for her.
The Court of Appeal also held that the woman who had the abortion was not a "person interested in the result of the trial". The Court held that a "person interested in the result of the trial" is a person who stands to gain or lose by the outcome of the trial. The Court found that the woman who had the abortion did not stand to gain or lose by the outcome of the trial. She was not a party to the prosecution and she did not have any financial or other interest in the outcome of the trial.
The Court of Appeal therefore allowed the appeal and quashed the appellant's conviction.
Criminal Procedure - Accomplice - Meaning of - Agent provocateur, whether accomplice
Teja Singh & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1930] MLJ 71, High Court, Johore Bahru In this case, the appellants were charged with robbery. The prosecution case was that the appellants were recruited by a police officer to rob a shop. The police officer had posed as a potential customer of the shop and had arranged to meet the appellants at a nearby location. The appellants then went to the shop and robbed it.
The appellants argued that the police officer was an agent provocateur and that his actions had induced them to commit the robbery. An agent provocateur is a person who incites another person to commit a crime in order to enable the police to arrest and prosecute that person.
The High Court held that the police officer was not an agent provocateur. The Court held that the police officer had not induced the appellants to commit the robbery. The appellants had already decided to rob the shop before they met the police officer. The police officer had simply provided them with the opportunity to carry out their plan.
The High Court therefore convicted the appellants.
Criminal Procedure - Accomplice - Meaning of - Jointly charged - Joint trial
Goh Ah Yew v Public Prosecutor [1949] MLJ 150, Court of Appeal, Federation of Malaya In this case, the appellant and another man were jointly charged with robbery. The prosecution case was that the two men had robbed a shop together. The appellant argued that he should not be tried jointly with the other man because he was not an accomplice to the robbery.
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant could be tried jointly with the other man. The Court held that the two men were jointly charged with the same offence and that they were both alleged to have been involved in the robbery. The Court found that it was not necessary to prove that the appellant was an accomplice to the robbery in order to convict him.
The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appellant's appeal.
Criminal Procedure - Accomplice - Meaning of - Police informer, not an accomplice
Public Prosecutor v Gurbachan Singh [1964] MLJ 141, High Court, Alor Star In this case, the appellant was charged with murder. The prosecution case was that the appellant had killed the victim in order to rob him. The appellant argued that the prosecution's case was based on the evidence of a police informer and that this evidence should not be admitted in evidence because the police informer was an accomplice.
The High Court held that the police informer was not an accomplice. The Court held that an accomplice is a person who is "aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence". The Court found that the police informer did not fall within this definition. He did not do anything to help the appellant commit the murder. He simply gave information to the police about the appellant's plans.
The High Court therefore allowed the appeal and quashed the appellant's conviction.
- THE MALAYSIAN e LAW ENCYCLOPEDIA
- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
- AGENCY
- ANIMALS
- ARBITRATION
- ARMY CASES
- ARMS AND AMMUNITION
- AUCTIONS
- BAILMENT
- BANISHMENT
- BANKING
- BETTING AND GAMING
- BILLS OF SALE
- BURIALS
- CARRIAGE BY AIR AND LAND
- CHARITIES
- CHILDREN/YOUNG PERSONS
- CHINESE LAW AND CUSTOM
- CITIZENSHIP
- CIVIL LAW
- CIVIL LAW ACT
- CONFLICT OF LAWS
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
- CONTRACT
- COPYRIGHT
- COSTS
- CRIMINAL LAW
- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- CURRENCY
- CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
- DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURY/DEATH
- DEBTORS
- DEFAMATION
- ELECTIONS
- EMERGENCY LAWS
