15 Jul KARPAL SINGH A/L RAM SINGH V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2016] 5 MLJ 818
Court of Appeal, Putrajaya
Parties to the Suit:
Appellant: Karpal Singh a/l Ram Singh
Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Relevant Provisions: Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948
Overview of the Case
The case of Karpal Singh a/l Ram Singh v Public Prosecutor was a criminal appeal that focused on the sentence imposed for an offence under the Sedition Act. The appellant, a prominent lawyer and Member of Parliament, was convicted under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 and was fined RM4,000.
The core issue of the appeal was not the conviction itself, but the severity of the sentence. The appellant argued that the fine was too high, submitting that it should be reduced to a sum of not more than RM2,000. The appellant’s reasoning was that a fine exceeding this amount would disqualify him as a Member of Parliament and would also result in him losing his pension as per Article 48 of the Federal Constitution.
The appellant’s legal team submitted several arguments to the court, including that his statements were made without malice and were intended as a legal opinion, and that the court should consider mitigating factors.
The appeal’s outcome was notable because the prosecution had no objection to the appellant’s request and had withdrawn its own appeal against the sentence. This effectively led the Court of Appeal to consider the appellant’s plea for a reduced fine. The case highlights the intricate legal and political considerations that can arise in cases involving the Sedition Act.