EMERGENCY LAWS

Emergency Legislation - Appeal - Extension of time

Case: Anandan v Sajjan Singh & Anor [1948-49] MLJ 164, Court of Appeal, Kuala Lumpur

Facts: The appellants were convicted of unlawful possession of arms and explosives under the Emergency Regulations. They appealed against their convictions on the ground that the time for appealing had expired.

Decision: The Court of Appeal held that the time for appealing had not expired, as the Emergency Regulations had extended the time for appealing in criminal cases. The Court also held that the appellants had a reasonable excuse for not appealing earlier, as they had been in custody for a long period of time and had not been able to obtain legal advice.

Keywords: Emergency Legislation, Appeal, Extension of time



Arms and explosives - Carrying - Certificate for committal for trial

Case: Wong Chik & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1950] MLJ 157, Court of Appeal, Federation of Malaya

Facts: The appellants were charged with unlawfully carrying arms and explosives. The magistrate committed them for trial, but the High Court quashed the committal orders.

Decision: The Court of Appeal held that the magistrate had erred in law in committing the appellants for trial. The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for unlawful carrying of arms and explosives.

Keywords: Arms and explosives, Carrying, Certificate for committal for trial



Arms and explosives - Carrying - Charge of possession - Onus of proof

Case: Lim Ah Tong v Public Prosecutor [1948-49] MLJ 158, Court of Appeal, Kuala Lumpur

Facts: The appellant was charged with unlawfully possessing arms and explosives. The appellant pleaded not guilty and the case went to trial.

Decision: The magistrate found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment. The appellant appealed against his conviction.

Decision: The Court of Appeal held that the magistrate had erred in law in finding the appellant guilty. The Court held that the onus of proof lay on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had unlawfully possessed the arms and explosives. The Court held that the prosecution had not discharged this burden of proof.

Keywords: Arms and explosives, Carrying, Charge of possession, Onus of proof





Arms and explosives - Carrying - Confession - Incomplete caution

Case: Liew Ching v Public Prosecutor [1949] MLJ 184, Court of Appeal, Federation of Malaya

Facts: The appellant was charged with unlawfully carrying arms and explosives. The appellant made a confession to the police.

Decision: The appellant applied to have his confession excluded from evidence on the ground that he had not been properly cautioned.

Decision: The trial judge refused to exclude the confession. The appellant appealed against the trial judge's decision.

Decision: The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in law in refusing to exclude the confession. The Court held that the appellant had not been properly cautioned and that his confession was therefore inadmissible in evidence.

Keywords: Arms and explosives, Carrying, Confession, Incomplete caution



Arms and explosives - Carrying - Directing assessors

Case: Ismail bin Haji Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor [1949] MLJ 139, Court of Appeal, Federation of Malaya

Facts: The appellant was charged with unlawfully carrying arms and explosives. The case went to trial and the appellant was convicted.

Decision: The appellant appealed against his conviction on the ground that the trial judge had misdirected the assessors.

Decision: The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had misdirected the assessors on the law relating to the burden of proof. The Court held that the appellant's conviction was unsafe and should be quashed.

Keywords: Arms and explosives, Carrying, Directing assessors