THE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO DEFENCE UNDER THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN MALAYSIA

Background and Purpose: Under the criminal justice system, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. It is worth noting that a criminal trial is not one-sided; it also allows the accused to raise his defence to prove his innocence. The research aims to analyse the right of the accused to raise a defence and when the defence should be raised in a criminal trial process in Malaysia. Methodology: This research adopts a legal research approach involving a detailed analysis of the relevant legal provisions, case law and scholarly writing related to this area. Findings: The research found that the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) (Act 593) is silent as to when the defence should be raised. That being said, with reference to the Supreme Court’s case of Lin Lian Chen v. Public Prosecutor [1992] 1 CLJ 285 (Rep), the accused should introduce his defence at the earliest stage as possible. Failing this may give rise to the presumption that the defence raised was a mere invention. Although the principle has been regarded as a law in raising defence, there are still cases where the accused did not present the defence at an earlier stage. Contributions: This research contributes to the corpus of legal knowledge of criminal defence, particularly on raising criminal defence in a criminal trial with the aim of providing better protection for the accused in the criminal justice system. Keywords: Criminal justice system, criminally liable, defence, right of the accused, & criminal trial. Cite as: Mohammed Na’aim, M. S., Rajamanickam, R., & Nordin, R. (2022). The right of an accused to defence under the criminal justice system in Malaysia. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 7(1), 43-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol7iss1pp43-58

ANALISIS HUKUM PENJATUHAN PIDANA OLEH HAKIM TERHADAP PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah (1) Untuk mengetahui dan memahamipenjatuhan pidana pelaku tindak pidana korupsi, dan (2) Untuk mengetahui dan memahami pertimbangan hukum hakim dalam menjatuhkan pidana atas putusan nomor 11/Pid.Sus-Tpk/2019/Pn.Mamuju. penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif. Diamana penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yang dimaksudkan dan dilakukan dengan melakukan pengkajian peraturan perundang-undangan dan bahan-bahan hukum tertulis lainnya yang berkaitan dengan penulisan ini. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Bentuk Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Terhadap Pelaku Tindak Pidana Korupsi pada putusan Nomor: 11/Pid.Sus.TPK/2019/PN.Mamuju adalah bahwa terhadap terdakwa Wiryadi dan terdakwa Nahruddin telah dijatuhkan pidana sesuai dengan pasal yang disangkakan yaitu pidana penjara selama 2 (dua) tahun penjara dan denda sebesar Rp.50.000.000,00 (lima puluh juta rupiah), sementara untuk terdakwa Darmawati yaitu putusan bebas dari semua dakwaan Penuntut Umum (Vrijspraak). The purposes of this study are (1) to find out and understand the criminal imposition of perpetrators of corruption, and (2) to know and understand the judge's legal considerations in imposing a sentence on the verdict number 11/Pid.Sus-Tpk/2019/Pn.Mamuju. The type of research used is normative juridical. Normative juridical research is research that is intended and carried out by using a study of legislation and other written legal materials related to this writing. The results show that the form of criminal liability against perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption in the decision Number: 11/Pid.Sus.TPK/2019/Pn.Mamuju is that the defendant Wiryadi and the defendant Nahruddin have been sentenced to imprisonment for 2 (two) years in prison and a fine of Rp.50,000,000.00 (fifty million rupiah), while for the defendant Darmawati, the verdict is acquittal from all charges of the Public Prosecutor (Vrijspraak).

Constraints by the Public Prosecutor in Proving Aspects of Criminal Liability for Narcotics Criminals with Undercover Buy Techniques

Narcotics crime is one of the extraordinary crimes. In addition to the negative impact it causes, the disclosure of narcotics crimes is not easy because it is transnational in nature, is carried out in secret, organized, uses various modus operandi and uses advanced technology. Therefore, the Law on Narcotics regulates investigative techniques that can be used to uncover narcotics crimes, one of which is an undercover buy investigation technique. However, this technique sometimes also leaves its own problems in its implementation. The objective of this study is to identify and explain the various constraints faced by the Public Prosecutor in proving aspects of criminal responsibility for narcotics criminals, especially those carried out with the undercover buy technique. This paper using a normative research type through a statutory approach and a case approach. This study explains that the Public Prosecutor still has problems in proving aspects of criminal responsibility for narcotics criminals, both from internal and external factors. The constraints from internal factors was that the Public Prosecutor was not careful in checking the completeness of the formal. Meanwhile, external factors, namely investigators did not provide actual information regarding the completeness of the material submitted in the first stage of file submission. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the regulation and coordination between law enforcement officers in terms of proving the accountability aspects of narcotics criminals using undercover buy techniques.

Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Tindak Pidana Penipuan Jual Beli Tanah (Studi Kasus : Putusan No. 74/Pid.B/2017/Pn Gin)

Crime on this earth will never end. The most frequent criminal treatment in the community is the crime of fraud related to an object. The crime of fraud has been regulated starting from Article 378 to Article 395 of the Criminal Code. This study aims to examine the criminal sanctions against the crime of fraud in the sale and purchase of land and reveal the judges' considerations against the perpetrators of the crime of fraud in the sale and purchase of land according to the case study: Decision No. 74/Pid.B/2017/PN Gin. This study uses a normative legal research method with a legislation approach and a case study approach. The legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials collected by library and interview techniques. Furthermore, the research data was processed and analyzed descriptively qualitatively. The results of the study revealed that the criminal sanction applied was in the form of a principal sentence by looking at the indictment of the public prosecutor which applied more to Article 378 of the Criminal Code so that in the case study the defendant was sentenced to a year in prison. The Panel of Judges made this decision after hearing statements from the defendant, victim witnesses, and evidence presented by the public prosecutor

Prevention of crime, tort and epidemy: The use of criminal procedure for preventive purposes in Poland during Covid-19

Criminal procedure is increasingly becoming an important instrument of prevention. This is a globally observed tendency, and Poland is not an exception. There are several regulations in the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure that allow the preventive use of coercive measures. In 2020, a new and controversial regulation was introduced, authorising the public prosecutor or court to prohibit the publication of content interfering with the legally protected goods of the victim. The author criticises the new preventive measure as duplicating civil law injunctions and expresses the opinion that, in criminal procedure, preventive measures should be used to prevent crime, not every illegal activity. In addition, the article describes the criminal procedure for isolating persons obliged to quarantine themselves because they have tested positive for Covid-19 or had contact with infected persons. This raises the question of the limits of the preventive function of provisional arrest and possible abuse of the criminal process using it for aims unrelated to the traditional goal of the criminal process: determining the question of guilt of the accused.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL FORMS FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF PETTY CRIME IN SERBIAN AND GERMAN LAW

The subject of the paper is the analysis of solutions that exist in Serbian and German criminal procedural law and refer to cases in which the public prosecutor in the field of petty crime is authorized to act towards adult perpetrators in accordance with the principle of opportunity of criminal prosecution. In relation to one variant of this principle, which implies conditional and temporary restraint of criminal prosecution, there is a distinct similarity in both mentioned legislations. However, with regard to the classic form of this procedural principle, which enables the public prosecutor to refrain prosecution for reasons of expediency, where he primarily values the public interest in prosecuting, there is a striking difference, because our criminal procedural law does not allow such a variant of the principle of opportunity of criminal prosecution. This difference is a consequence of a different criminal policy approach, because while in German criminal law the problem of petty crime is solved exclusively by procedural mechanisms, in Serbian criminal law, in addition to procedural law, there are also appropriate instruments in the substantive criminal law.

Diff erentiation of solutions in view of the public prosecutor’s supervision over preparatory proceedings in criminal and tax off ence cases based on selected provisions of the code of criminal procedure and the penal fi scal code from the perspective of good law characteristics

This article is an attempt to show the consequences of differences in regulations on Public Prosecutor’s supervision over proceedings as provided for by the Penal Fiscal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, from the perspective of good law characteristics. On the basis of selected regulations, the author attempts to demonstrate that the marginal supervision of the Public Prosecutor over the investigation in the penal fi scal proceedings as provided for in the legislation contradicts the clarity, coherence and effectiveness of law. The differentiation between solutions adopted in this respect gives rise to problems with normative regulations based on the Penal Fiscal Code and makes the regulations inconsistent with other legislation: the Act of 28 January 2016 — Law on the Prosecutor’s Offi ce and the Act of 17 June 2004 — on complaint regarding infringement of the party’s right to examine the case in preparatory proceedings conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and court proceedings without unreasonable delay. Further, in the content of the article the author refers to selected legislation applicable also to investigation regulated by the penal fi scal proceeding regulations. They serve as an example to demonstrate the thesis that the differentiation introduced in this respect in the legislation is entirely unreasonable as compared to the related regulations of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The analysis of those regulations proves that there is no system-related or legal argumentation that would justify this kind of exceptions. In the conclusions drawn on the basis of the analyses carried out in the article, the author states that the introduction of different regulations in the Penal Fiscal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure as regards the Public Prosecutor’s supervision over the investigation conducted by the fi nancial authority responsible for preparatory proceedings and some exceptions in respect of investigations does not fulfi l the requirements of good law.

Legal Rules Concerning Shoot to Death for Criminal Acts of Terrorism in the Perspective of the Principle of the Prejudiction of Innovality

The state in carrying out the life of the nation and state faces threats that come from within the country and abroad. This study aims to find out the legal rules regarding shooting to death for perpetrators of criminal acts of terrorism in the perspective of the principle of the presumption of innocence, where this case has always been a hot issue in Indonesia, especially when we associate shooting to death or being shot on the spot for perpetrators of criminal acts of terrorism with the principle of presumption of innocence. This research is normative in nature with reference to existing books, journals, and laws and regulations. There are several legal rules that form the basis for doing so/shooting death against terrorism crimes are: Article 48 of the Criminal Code, In Article 49 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, In Article 51 of the Criminal Code paragraph (1), National Police Chief Regulation Number 8 of 2009 concerning Implementation of Human Rights Principles and Standards. The principle of presumption of innocence also places him in the Burden of Proof or the burden of proof and it is the duty of the public prosecutor to prove the defendant's guilt, unless the proof of Insanity is imposed on the defendant or the law provides strict provisions for reverse proof. The application of the principle of presumption of innocence must also always uphold human rights that must be respected by everyone.

PRINCIPLE OF OPPORTUNITY OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION – LEGAL AND THEORETICAL ASPECTS

All social, political and economical progress that was made in the end of 19th century and beginning оf 20th century had a really strong consecuensed a wide reforms of processes of criminal law and criminal proceedings law by a legislation of Republic of Serbia, which showed uneficcience, inert and uneffective plan of crime prevention in practice. Practical analysis proved that it's necessary to make structural changes to pervious criminal procedure, first through the changed act of a public prosecutor, than in aplyying a simplified form of actions in his criminal cases. Effective fight against criminal, which has showing a constant trend of growth, always requiered quick, adequate and contemporary procedure and trial in short time. That was the interest of a whole society, and a defendant too. In that circumstances, principle of opportunity hac become a important instrument that requieres eficient procedure of minor crimes. Ratio legis and criminal political justification of the introduction of this principle in the criminal law of Republic of Serbia, reflected first throuht relief of courts, reduction of the number of cases and rationalization of criminal law. In this way, Republic of Serbia was followed aplyed trends of European comparative legislation, creating conditions for a new aproach of a criminal procedure in threating perpetrators of a minor crimes. The point was in a efficient, effective, and deformalised crime procedures.

Analisis Yuridis terhadap Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Berencana Dan Penganiayaan terhadap Anak yang Mengakibatkan Luka Berat (Studi Putusan No. 36/Pid.B/2016/PN.MLL)

This review inspects the use of the law to the wrongdoing of planned homicide and judges' contemplations in taking care of the wrongdoing of planned homicide and youngster misuse that outcomes in genuine wounds. This exploration is a regulating juridical examination. The regularizing juridical methodology is a methodology that inspects speculations, ideas, lawful standards and legal guidelines. The strategy of gathering essential lawful materials and optional legitimate materials utilizes the strategies of gathering lawful materials with writing study. The outcomes showed that the utilization of the law against the wrongdoing of planned homicide and abuse of kids bringing about genuine wounds disregards Article 340 of the Criminal Code and Article 80 Paragraph (2) of Law Number 23 of 2002 concerning Child Protection, demonstrating that the respondent perpetrated the wrongdoing of planned homicide. What's more, youngster misuse bringing about genuine wounds. The appointed authority's thought in dealing with this wrongdoing, forces a daily existence detainment. The respondent was accused of having perpetrated a wrongdoing of planned homicide which brought about the passing of casualty Christina Tandioga and youngster misuse which brought about genuine injury to Sestika Santika. For instance, the essential incrimination of the Public Prosecutor, Article 340 of the Criminal Code and the second prime incrimination of the Public Prosecutor, Article 80 Paragraph (2) of Law Number 23 Year 2002.