15 Jul PENDAKWA RAYA V BADRUL HISHAM BIN SHAHARIN [2018] MLJU 36
High Court, Shah Alam
Parties to the Suit:
Appellant: Public Prosecutor
Respondent: Badrul Hisham bin Shaharin
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Relevant Provisions: Peaceful Assembly Act 2009 specifically Section 9(1), Section 3, Section 19
Overview of the Case:
The Respondent, Badrul Hisham bin Shaharin, was charged in the Sessions Court with failing to provide the required 10-day notice for a public assembly, in violation of Section 9(1) of the Act.
The Sessions Court acquitted the Respondent after finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the most critical element of the charge: that the Respondent was, in fact, the organiser. This conclusion was based on the testimony of the prosecution’s own witnesses, who stated under cross-examination that the assembly was organised by the “Secretariat Pakatan Rakyat.”
The Public Prosecutor appealed this decision to the High Court, arguing that the Sessions Judge had erred by not strictly applying the statutory definition of an “organiser” under Section 3 or the legal presumption under Section 19.
The High Court then dismissed the Public Prosecutor’s appeal and upheld the acquittal of our client.
The High Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that factual evidence presented in court takes precedence over a rigid application of statutory definitions, particularly when a legal presumption is contested by the prosecution’s own case. The successful defence of our client highlights the importance of thorough cross-examination and a robust understanding of the nuances within statutory law.