Wednesday, 7 January 2015

Sunday, 23 November 2014

07:32 - 1 comment

Bail



BAIL (read closely with Baljit Singh book)
-            Also called as pre trial matter because can be done before trial itself
-            In order to have commencement you need to have a charge and sometime a charge must come with consent (/sanction/authorization). Commencement when charge is read and explained but the trial may be sometime after that. Charge is there after the last day of remand and cannot go beyond 14 days unless the PCA applies (prevention of crime act)
-            While waiting for the trial, the bail comes in or he enters back into remand, even though there was commencement but trial date is sometimes after commencement = still pre-trial and the important matter in the gap is bail
-            In a private prosecution there is an initiation s.128 -136 here applies

A.      Definition
-            Bail is “a delivery or bailment of a person to his sureties upon their giving of sufficient security for his appearance, he being supposed to continue in their friendly custody instead of going to gaol (custody = remand)”
-            A bond is an instrument binding the person who executes it. The bond may bind the person to be of good behaviour under s.173A CPC to appear in court on a particular date set for trial under s.294 CPC.
-            Bail is to deliver A to B, but bond is example a bond for good behaviour and A has a bond and B has the bail.
-            The bail binds the bailer and the bond binds the person under bond.
-            It is an important principle that bail is not punitive because he is only an OKT and deemed innocent until proven otherwise so cannot impose bail of murder example, it is only for the purpose of securing attendance of OKT.

1.        Moh Ting King v PP [1995] 3 MLJ 461

2.        Mohd Jalil v PP [1996] 5 MLJ 564
-            The purpose of the bail is to secure attendance of accused person at a certain date and place in order to answer the charge
-            Not intended to be punitive and excessive



3.        Yusof bin Mohamed v PP (1995) 3 MLJ 66
-            Bail in simple language means security taken from a person to appear on a fixed date before court
-            The meaning of the word bail as ordinarily and commonly understood is to set free a person who is under arrest, detention or is under some kind of restraint by taking security for his appearance
-            It is well and good that an accused person be put on bail pending the hearing of his appeal


-            When there is a trial or an appeal pending against the accused the prosecutor or the court may offer bail to A pending the trial or the appeal
-            Whether or not bail will be allowed would depend on the type of offence with which A is charged
-            For purpose of provisions of bail “such court” means the trial court and under s.2(1) CPC it means MC, C, HC where the court exercise the original criminal jurisdiction
-            However judge under s.289 CPC refer to HC judge. Why? (amount of bond – see section)

3 TYPES OFFENCES IN RELATION TO BAIL
i.          S.387(1) CPC – A is entitled to bail as of right, where it is mandatory. Police has first right to put him in remand of investigation of 14 days the most, at that time when he was OKT there not entitled to bail because it overrides the right to bail under s.387. So for example corruption cases where accused comes to court on that day because he has been given a police bond, the charge read against him and explained to him, he understood and he plead not guilty and claims trial. If it is a bailable offence entitled to claim.

4.        Mohd Jalil v PP [1996] 5 MLJ 564
-            Word “shall be released on bail” = mandatory
5.        Michael Raymond 
-            Though no arrest but when appellant appeared before court he was entitled to bail
6.        Kwan Hung v Inspector Yusof Haji     Unders s.387 no conditions can be imposed
7.        PP v Dato Mat

-       First schedule of CPC for offences other than PC punishable for less than 3 years or with fine only are bailable. If there is a failure to attend when there is a bail, can the court revoke the bail in a bailable offence? The court says, granting bail is one thing and revoking is another. SO now revoked can still grant another cause it is a bailable offence? To be granted must be given opportunity to explain not that he is absent simply revoked. Warrant of arrest can be issued but bail is still there, when WOA brings him to court now he appears to court to explain and the court must listen to his explanation.

8.        Maja ak Kus
-            Remand order u/s 117 CPC supersedes s.387 CPC

9.        Wong Kim Woon
-            Breach & revocation of bail but allowed to be head first

10.    Wee Swee Siang
-            Refusal to grant bail

11.    Phang Yong Fook
-            Wrong to order remand after bail revoked

NON BAILABLE
-            Court has discretion to grant bail
12.    Loy Chin Hei
-            Non Bailable means not bailabel under s.2(1) CPC

13.    Mat Zain
-            Court or OCPD has discretion to grant bail in non bailable cases depending on circumstances & facts of each case

Bailable offence = a entitled as of right, mandatory and don’t impose condition on the accused and the other thing is that bail cannot be punitive and excessive, to secure attendance and not to punish OKT. Even if there is a bailable offence and no compliance of the bail especially when A don’t turn up on the next date, the court can issue warrant of arrest but court cannot revoke bail there and then but allow A to explain because it is AS OF RIGHT.
Next is where non bailable offence where it is of discretion of court to grant bail, the DPP will either offer or otherwise to the A. If he offers, he will state an amount and the defence party will try to reduce the amount. But there can be situation where PP doesn’t intend to offer bail to A and defence need to fight for bail for A.

Non bailable offence under S.388
Type A:           Release on bail as no reasonable grounds A is guilty but sufficient grounds for further enquiry
Type B:           reasonable grounds of guilt – no bail, but not unbailable or bail not allowed
Type C:           A under 16 or a women, sick/infirm may be released on bail even though reasonable grounds of guilt

14.    Dato Balwant Singh (read on the facts of accused)
-            80 year with MC, here suffering number of medical situation, in the end bail was granted.
15.    Dato Mat Shah
-            Only high court has unfettered discretion to grant bail in death & life imprisonment cases
-            When there is discretion to grant bail, there is discretion to impose conditions referring to Dato Mat case above (but) see condition above.
-            Court will grant bail unless strong grounds bail should be refused
-            GR: grant bail unless strong grounds to refuse, passport released by HC objected by PP but SC held court has such power while exercising its discretion and inherent jurisdiction under s.389 CPC.

16.    Wee Swee Siang
-            Good example on discretion to grant bail for Type A and there are 9 fators to be considered under 388
-            Whether reasonable grounds that A is guilty
-            Nature an gravity of offence
-            Severity and degree of punishment
-            Danger of A absconding
-            A character, means and standing
-            danger of offence contd/repeated
-            Danger of witnesses tampered with
-            Opportunity for A to prepare his defence
-            Long period of defendant/custody between date of charge and date of trial

Bail needs to be exercised judicially (meaning by law)
17.    PP v DSAI
-            Bail rejected here

These are cases in relation to the facts (read recent cases with reference to the older cases)

18.    Manickam & Ors
-            Bail should be not refused as presumption of innocence favours accused & not punitive but to ensure attendance in court

Unbailable offence
-            No bail is allowed
-            Offence under Reg.9 ESCAR s12(1) FIPA, s.41B DDA

19.    Chiew Siew Luan
-            S.41B DDA supersedes

BAIL PENDING APPEAL
-          So here it is a post trial matter, can be both.

Bail Pending Appeal Against Conviction 
3 distinct authorities to grant bail pending appeal
1.        S.311 CPC: appeal does not operate automatic as stay of execution only for whipping execution stayed discretion with trial court. Appellate court to grant stay & bail. Trial court, subordinate court and HC may grant bail pending appeal against conviction. S.311 CPC should be distinguished from a 3115 which deal with the grant bail pending appeal against acquittal by the HC
2.        S.57 CJA: COA can order stay and bail
3.        S.89 CJ: FC can order bail

Bail don’t act as stay of conviction imprisonment not stayed but whipping stayed. (read on bail pending appeal) Bail is different from stay. Wait for sentence first before appealing, so now when sentence has been passed, appeal within 14 days for the convicted person to allow lawyer to file an appeal à then bail comes in à then ask for stay of proceedings (of the sentence). The effect (person is out if bail or stayed granted) is the same but principles are different governing both of these. Stay here means stay of sentence and it can be a fine and it can be RM1 million example so you ask for stay hence no need to pay that sum first.

Acquittal à then an appeal à warrant of arrest (when there is, he is no longer a free man he is OKT à to be free man applies for bail


If there is no warrant of arrest? Free man but appeal can still be there. 

07:25 - No comments

Charges - General Rule & Exceptions




CHARGES
it is a big topic because a prosecution cannot proceed without a charge although there are few which could proceed without and may not be fatal. But now it always starts with a charge. Another principle is that one charge 1 accused = 1 conviction.

A.  General Rule
-       A should be convicted only for the offence stated in the charge or amended charge

B.  Exception
-       There are 4 exceptions under s.167-s.169 CPC which provide that A may be convicted for an offence not charged. There can be third conviction for an offence not charged, may fall under one of the section here mentioned.

I.         FIRST EXCEPTION S.167
-            If A is charged with one offence and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged according to s.166 CPC he may be convicted of the offence not charged. See s.166 where facts are clear but not clear and not obvious of the offence and will only be obvious after the evidence is looked into.  But there can be situation where can have conviction where there is no charge. Example charged with theft but on evidence there was CBT or receiving stolen goods, may be convicted by those 2 although not charged for it example receiving stolen goods where there is enough evidence to support the charge.

1.        Lew Cheok Hin v R [1956] MLJ 131
-            Court recognized that there can be conviction for offence not charged under s.167 but court applied two tests under this case in order for s.167 to apply (in convicting a person for an offence not charged.
-            1st = the facts must be such as framed charged available from the starts (meaning facts were there but somehow charge was not there, example in CP facts were there but not pleaded example Puncak Emas case here facts pleaded and evidence shown, not disputed, was on negligence but court awarded for nuisance as well). Facts were there but the prosecution preferred (where prosecution can prefer a charge against accused and not for the court to disturb but on the facts also there is another offence
-            2nd = the evidence must be lead on the charged preferred (same charge leading to another evidence can find conviction on that offence as well but therefore will offend the general principle of 1 charge, 1 conviction, but because test fulfilled can)
-            S.167 can apply it both test can apply
-            The judge here mentioned on the general principle of s.152-153, s.166 and s.167
-            Judge also said that s.167 has to be read with s.166 (where facts are obvious and offence is not). Example based on evidence adduce notice can lead to another conviction.

2.        Sivalingam v PP [1982] 2 MLJ 172 (FC)
-            Here also on s.167 to be read together with s.166
-            In other words, both test must be fulfilled. Firstly, the facts give rise to the offence and lead to conviction but not only the facts must be there but evidence must show on the other offence as well
-            So facts + evidence = conviction
-            But this conviction is for an offence not charged.

3.        Gurdit Singh v PP [1983] CLJ Rep 575
-            This is HC, it applies the test in Taylor J judgment in the first case above
-            Facts must be there, evidence must be there for conviction to be saved, the two tests
-            The court here used the word ‘substitute’

II.      SECOND EXCEPTION s.168
-       If A is charged with an offence he may be convicted of having attempted to commit that offence although the attempt is not separately charged
-       There should be two charges for two distinct offence but can have only 1 charge if exceptions can be applied
-       But here DPP preferred it that because Art.145 (3) says for PP to decide and not to be interfered with, and example they don’t charge for attempt, don’t ask.
-       But during trial there can be attempt to commit s.168, although offence for attempt, charge was not there so this provision allows an oversight on the part of DPP
4.        Quinn v Howland [1949] MLJ 217
III.   THIRD EXCEPTION S.169(1)
-            Where accused charged on some particulars but only some is proved which constitute a minor offence, then he may be convicted of the minor offence although he was not charged with it
-            Example A + B + C = conviction and now conviction for Z
-            During trial only A & B is proved = can lead to conviction for offence Y (minor offence)
-            Look at illustration 169 (where A charged for CBT for delivering courier, on evidence he did not commit CBT under that section where it concerns a courier but he may still be convicted for CBT (where there is different degree of severity) where lower degree of CBT can have conviction. Minor offence to CBT on delivering courier.

5.        Kundan Singh v PP [1939] 1 MLJ 27
-            Minor means in relation to the first charge or in relation to the offence which was the subject of a charge. So normally it means a lesser punishment (during tutorial discuss on degree of extortion where extort is higher than putting one in fear of injury and putting one in fear of grievous injury is higher than simply extort but then extort in order to put one in injury is still higher than putting one in fear of injury in order to extort). à here can see different degrees of extortion as example

IV.   FOURTH EXCEPTION .169(2)
-            Where A is charged with an offence and the facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence he may be convicted of the minor offence although he was not charged with it.
-            A good example of this would be murder where the facts of murder is there but can be reduced to a minor offence (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) it is minor because punishment is lesser where murder death is mandatory but for culpable homicide is life imprisonment.
-            Can be reduced to culpable homicide when? When he raised a defence example self defence and grave and sudden provocation.

6.        PP v Francis Dang Anak Nuya [1988] 1 MLJ 89



MULTIPLE CHARGES

A.      Withdrawal of charge
-            We have seen the exception apply where example 10 charges, 1 trial.
-            If 1 is caught, can the other charges be withdrawn?
-            Withdrawal of remaining charges on conviction of one of several charges – s.171(1) CPC
§   If there is more than one charge and A is convicted on one or more charges, the prosecution may, with consent of the court, withdraw the other charges
§   The court may also on its own motion stay the inquiry or trial of those remaining charges
7.        PP v Syed Feisal [2007] LNS 120

§   Such withdrawal has the effect of an acquittal of such charge or charges – s.171(2) CPC
-            For s.171 to apply,
-            With the consent of court the withdrawal amounts to acquittal but here

B.       Outstanding offences – s.171A CPC
-            If there are many charges against A, at the end of the trial on one charge, the court may take into consideration any other outstanding offences which have been admitted by A when sentencing, provided that both the prosecution and A consent to this measure – S.171A
-            Example there are 3 charges, he can claim trial for 1 and plead guilty for the other or alternatively. Example after trial there’s conviction, there’s still 2 charges which is PG (goes for sentencing) but the one in trial go to conviction and sentencing, the court can consider other offences but with the consent of accused because in order to do this, à lead to aggravating the offence
-            When the consent is given, court has to record it so that court won’t offend s.171A(2) there is safeguards for the accused here.

8.        Abang Zailan v PP [1992] 1 MLJ 225





*recap we have looked into charge (please check back on the list covered):
1.      what must be there in a charge
2.      what happens if there’s an error
3.      amendment of charge
4.      general principles (1 charge 1 offence)
5.      the exceptions to the GR (4 exceptions)
6.      conviction for an offence not charged
7.      multiple charges

8.      outstanding offences

Monday, 17 November 2014

05:51 - No comments

Joinder of Offences & Charges

JOINDER OF OFFENCES AND CHARGES
1.        Rules against duplicity
-       Where there is more than one offence in one charge, we say the charge is duplicated.
-       Section 163 CPC
-       Every distinct offence must be mentioned in a separate charge – first limb of s.163
-       This means that for one distinct offence there must be one charge and for two distinct offences, there must be two charges
-       When two offences are committed and they have no connection with one another, they are distinct offences
-       For example if offence of grievous hurt and theft are distinct offences – illustration to s.163
-       Hence the rule is often termed as the rule against duplicity,, which is a prohibition against introducing more than one offence in a single charge
-       There are numerous categories of distinct offences but three obvious categories are:
·         Offences provided under different sections of the PC or any other penal statute
·         Offences provided under the same section of the law but committed at different time or on different occasions
·         Offences committed against different persons or victims





EFFECT OF DUPLICITY
A.      Mere irregularity that can be cured

1.        Lee Ching Kee v PP [1935] 1 MLJ 157
-       Two offences in the same charge, dealing and coveying
-       Refers to commentary of Indian criminal procedure
-       Two offences in one charge bad for duplicity
-       Can find the principle in s.163  
-       Accused was not prejudiced
-       So conviction was affirmed here

B.       An illegality that cannot be cured
-       This is usually in traffic offences usually either negligence or reckless where the elements are different. You can charge in the alternative, either one to be charged if cannot succeed in one of it
-       Cannot say in the charge reckless and negligence

2.        Jagar Singh v PP [2936] MLJ 114 COA
-       Two offences, bad for duplicity, should have a charge in the alternative
-       One charge may  have two offences but in the alternative would be ok but if you have one offence + another offence not in alternative = bad for duplicity whereby it is illegality and cannot maintain such conviction if there was conviction made
-       Here case of reckless and negligence

3.        Yap Liow Swee v PP MLJ 225 COA
-          Follows Jagar Singh sayin irregularity cannot be cured
-          Burden of A to prove that there has been a failure of justice

4.        Muthan v PP [1947] MLJ 86





C.       No prejudice and no failure of justice

5.        See Yew Poo v PP 1949] MLJ 131
-       Appellate decision here, court said offence should be separate charges
-       Here irregularity that can be cured under s.422 because no prejudice and no failure of justice (these concept easy to say difficult to apply so quote on the facts)
-       Why there was no failure of justice? (use facts to prove and relate it)

6.        PP v Mohamed Fathi [1979] 2 MLJ 70
-       Judge discuss on s.163 principle and exception in s.153(2)

DISTINCT OFFENCES
7.        PP v Norzilan 1989] 1 MLJ 442 (READ THIS)
-            Drug trafficking case where it was found in her house in 3 different locations; 1 middle room, kitchen and backyard
-            The house was rented by a number of person, friends etc so question of who has possession of the drugs because possession more than statutory weight becomes trafficking so in that situation DPP must prove that the accused has possession to the drugs but in a house shared by many people may be difficult to prove
-            Eventually first accused had been charged in respect of the room in the middle of the house but according to evidence, his room is in the first room and has no access to middle room, so person no exclusive access to the room would be difficult
-            Important here is on the opinion of the judge where the drugs was found can be subject of different charges against the person who has exclusive possession to the venue where the drugs were found
-            Offences were lumped into one charge, but the charge proceeded with the middle room
-            So because of that prosecution case was limped

8.        Mahendran Manikam v PP 1997] 1 CLJ Supp 473
-            Raping, same victim on two different occasions and should have two separate charges for two offences at two different places
-            Court held to be two distinct offences should have 2 separate charges
-            Talking about the general rule here, more than 1 offence in 1 charge

9.        Datuk Haji Wasli [2006] 5 MLJ 172
10.    Leken @ Delam v PP [2007] 3 MLJ 730

EXCEPTIONS
-            4 exceptions to the second limb, first limb has one exception s.153(2) not in s.163 where the charge can contain more than one offence if in relation to CBT and dishonest misappropriation of money. It must be committed within one year for this both to relate, if it falls out of it, cannot be subject to one charge.
-            Charge only need to mention to gross sum, several CBT is possible too.

11.    Sheikh Hassan v PP 1940] MLJ 69
-            The gross sum in 1939 is 23 dollars received on separate occasions every occasion 1 dollar
-            Syariah law may allow nikah twice but under our Malaysian law, cannot nikah dua kali,  if have not registered, go to court and register it
-            Here there was CBT
-            Was a good charge falling under s.153(2)

23 offences of CBT – 1 charge
Dates of offence between 1/2/1938 and 31/1/1938
Offences punishable under s.409 PC
Gross sum $23

12.    PP v Mohamad Fathi [1979] 2 MLJ 70
-       4 forgery offences on documents, so does not fall under CBT therefore à 4 offences each for one document, different occasions therefore 4 charges of forgery à later reduced to 3 amended charges à later reduce to 1 (3 charges telescope) à but the court said charge was bad for duplicity but curable under s.422 because accused understood the charge against him for 4 documents & forgery

13.    PP v Shably [1992] 2 CLJ 1269



Rule against joinder of charges
-            Every charge must be tried separately second limb of s.163
-            One charge, one trial and every A must be tried separately
-            The rationale is that court and A will not be prejudiced by a multitude of charges at one trial
-            When it contrives, there is a misjoinder of charges

14.    Subramaniam Iyer (1901) 28 IA 257
-            Misjoinder is an illegality
-            The Privy Council was unable to regard the disobedience to an express provision as a mere irregularity because such a phrase is not appropriate to the illegality of trying A for many different…
-            Exceptions to the rule against joinder of charges
-            There are 4 exceptions to the rule
-            These are provided in s.164, 165, 166 and 170 CPC

EXCEPTIONS
FIRST EXCEPTION – S.164 CPC (more than 1 not more than 3)
-            The elements in s.164(1) CPC are:
1.        1A
2.        More than 1 offence
3.        Offences are of the same kind(s.164(2))
-            This offences fall into 3 categories; punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of PC or any other law
-            Offences punishable under s.379, 380, 382, 392, 397(offences relating to theft and robbery)
-            Offences under any section of PC or any other law which shall be deemed to be offences of the same kind as attempt to commit such offences when such attempt is an offence
4.        Offences are committed within 12 months
5.        Victim may be the same r not and
6.        Number of charges joined must not exceed 3 charges




SECOND EXCEPTION – S.165 CPC
-            Provide for 3 exceptions: series of act (example shoots and robs) so there are 2 offences, 2 charges can put into 1 trial, 1 accused.
·      Where the acts committed are so connected together as to form the same transaction –s.165(1) CPC
-       The elements to be fulfilled are; 1 A, more than 1 offence, offences are committed by a series of acts so connected together to form the same transaction

15.    R v Shahapurkar ILR 30 Bom 49
-            transaction means carrying through, this suggests not necessarily proximity in time so such as continuity of action and purpose. In order that a number of acts may be so connected together as to form part of the same transaction, community of purpose of design and continuity of action are essential elements. In Shahapurkar, there was proximity of time but what is more important is the continuity of action and purpose or there is a community or purpose

16.    Amrita Lal Hazra v Emperor 42 Cal 95: there is no definite formula which may be applied to all situations to determine whether two or more acts form the same transaction however the matters which ought to be considered are:
·         Proximity of time
·         Unity or proximity of place
·         Continuity of action
·         Continuity of purpose or design

17.    Cheong Sik Kwan [1955] MLJ 236 COA
-          CBT 4 situations of accounts but were in the same transactions, there was continuity of purpose or community of purpose
-          Then court explained the law (good judgment)

18.    PP v Rizuan [1996] 2 CLJ 346


19.    Shaafie Saibi [2007]
-       What is not the same transaction?

20.    Seng Sai Kee [1940] MLJ 246

21.    Datuk Wasli
-          Putting in fear of injury, at the same time there was connection of theft, not connected in any way

22.    Chin Choy v PP [1955]

·           Where the acts constitute an offence in more than one provision of law – S.165(2)
-       Stage of proceeding to determine ‘same transaction’
-       When the charge is framed not at the end of trial
-       If A’s acts constitute an offence within two or more separate provisions of law, then he may be tried at one trial for each of such offences see illustration (g) – (j)
-       The court is at liberty to impose a punishment for each offence, provided that the total amount of punishment does not exceed the maximum for any of the offences

23.    Lim Ong Lum v R [1926] SSLR 152

·           Where the acts are individual offence but when combined together constitute another separate offence – S.165(3) CPC
-          Hybrid like - illustration (k)

THIRD EXCEPTION – S.166
-       The elements are: 1 A, more than 1 offence, offences committed in a single act or series of act
-       The situation here is where the facts are certain but offences are not
-       The prosecutor is uncertain under which offence the facts will fall under
-       In such event, the DPP can refer the answer provided under s.166 as well
·      A may be charged with all or any of the offences and any number of the charges may be tried at once OR
·      Charged in the alternative (judge will give advice and observe here and refer to illustration (a) & (b)

24.    Hassan bin Isahak v PP [1948-49] MLJ
25.    PP v Abdullah Ambek [1984] 1 CLJ 189
26.    Chan Chan Seng v PP [1932] MLJ 107

FOURTH EXCEPTION – S.170 CPC
-       Joiner of offenders [(164 is joinder of charges, 165 is also joinder of charges1 A several offences) s.165 can have more than 3 offences & charges, but 164 confined to 3 within 1 year]
-       170 is on joinder of offender, more than 1 accused in 1 trial
-       It provides for 2 situations where if the court thanks fit , it may follow more than one A to be tried jointly
·      Where they are accused of committing the same offence or different offences in the same transaction and
·      Where one is accused of committing an offence and the other of abetment or attempt to commit the same offence

27.     Teja Singh v PP [1950] MLJ 71
-                 One if for bribery, the other for abetment of bribery, police officer involved.

1 trial; 2 Accused Persons
1st A was charged for abetment of corruption
2nd was charged for committing corruption


28.    Tan Kheng Ann [1965] 2 MLJ 108
-            There was a detention centre there and there was rioting there
-            The issue whether same transaction or otherwise or different offences (read case)


29.    Manikam v PP [1947] 90
-            Here court said should be separate trial and not joined
-            Accused person jointly tried on criminal trespass but different day, offence may be the same but there should be separate trial for different accused person because not in same transaction

Section 170(2)
-            This provides for 3 categories of offences for joinder of offences:
·      Theft, extortion, CBT, cheating or criminal misappropriation
·      Receiving or retaining or assisting disposal of property and concealment of property, possession of which has been transferred after such offence is committed by the first named persons
·      Abetment or attempting t o commit an such last named offence

We have 4 exceptions in total, so how to apply?
Lim Yean Leong v PP – s.165(1) (not limited to 3 charges therefore trial no3 can include forgery) here 163 & 164 also can apply

25/1/1938
26/2/1938
19/4/1938
·      1offence of CBT
·      2 subsidiary offences of altering a/c
·      1 offence of CBT
·      2 subsidiary offences of altering a/c
·      1 offence of CBT
·      2 subsidiary offences altering a/c
·      1 offence of forgery

LIM YEAN LEONG V PP – S.164
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Trial 4
·      3 charges of CBT
·      3 charges of altering a/c
·      3 charges of altering a/c
·      1 charge of forgery



Mutually cumulative/ mutually exclusive, = if one exception applies, the others are not excluded, meaning more than 1 exception can be applied to the given situation with the result that you will see 10 charges can be in on trial. Mutually exclusive can use 1 only and cannot use the rest.

1 TRIAL; 10 CHARGES
s.164 CPC
s.165(1) CPC


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)