Case review on PP v YAZID SUFAAT & ORS

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. This was an appeal by the prosecution against the decision of the high court in
acquitting and discharging the respondents from charges proferred against them.
2. The respondents were arrested under section 4 of Security Offence (Special
Measure) Act 2012 (SOSMA) and were separately charge for security offences under
section 130G(a) of the Penal Code(the Code).
3. The first respondent was charged for promoting an act of terrorism and that act
was regarded as being intended as a threat to the members of the public in Syria.
4. The second and third respondents were charged for abetting the first respondent.
5. The second respondent was not present during this appeal as there was no
foreseeable likelihood of securing her present after she was acquitted by the high
court.
6. However, this appeal proceeded against the first entered respondent.
7. The respondent contended that SOSMA was enacted according to article 149 of
the Federal Constitution to deal with action or threat committed within Malaysia by
any substantial body of person from inside or outside Malaysia.
8. The High Court ruled that the charges against the respondents were related to
acts of terrorism committed outside Malaysia and since SOSMA was enacted to deal
with action or threat committed within Malaysia. It clearly did not apply to the
respondents trial for offences relating to acts of terrorism committed outside
Malaysia.
9. The High Court further ruled that should the prosecution proceed with the seek
charges against the respondents by invoking the provision in SOSMA. It would be an
abuse of the process of court.
10. Thus, the trial court had set aside and quashed or stayed permanently the
charges against the respondent. Hence, this appeal by the prosecution.
Held:
The court allowed the appeal by the prosecutor and set aside all the orders of the
High Court. The court make a further order that the respondents case be remitted
to the High Court Shah Alam for the said court to set the date for trial.
Opinion:
I agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal that set aside the orders of High
Court as section 2 of SOSMA states that the procedure laid down in SOSMA applies
to the trial of any person charged with committing any security offence under
Chapter VIA of the Code. The learned judge in High Court therefore erred in holding
that it would be an abuse of the process of court to invoke the provisions in SOSMA
for the purpose of the respondents trial for security offences under s. 130G(a) read
with s.109 of the Penal Code.
Legislation:
Criminal Procedure Code, s. 177A, Federal Constitution, arts. 5, 8, 149, Penal Code,
ss. 4, 109, 130B(2), (5)(b), 140G(a), Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012,
ss. 2, 4, 12, 13.