The requirement to notify authorities before an assembly under s 9(1) of the PAA is not a restriction on the constitutional right to assemble and is therefore constitutional.

Introduction

[1] This appeal concerns the interpretation of s 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (" PAA ").

[2] The background facts giving rise to this appeal are these. The respondent was charged in his capacity as an organiser of an assembly, at the Sessions Court, Johor Bahru, an offence under s 9(1) of the PAA , which is punishable under s 9(5) of the same Act. The charge reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 15 Mei 2013 jam lebih kurang 8.30 malam, di pejabat Parti Keadilan Rakyat No 38, Jalan Baladu 19, Taman Puteri Wangsa, Ulu Tiram, dalam Daerah Johor Bahru, dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim, di mana Program Himpunan Black 505, Bantahan Terhadap SPR telah diadakan, sebagai penganjur program tersebut, kamu gagal memberitahu Ketua Polis Daerah Johor Bahru Selatan 10 hari sebelum program tersebut diadakan dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 9(1) Akta Perhimpunan Aman 2012 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 9(5) Akta yang sama."

[3] The assembly was held at the office of Parti Keadilan Rakyat ["PKR"], Johor Bahru. The respondent had failed to notify the Officer in Charge of the Police District (OCPD) of Johor Bahru Selatan about the gathering within the time stipulated under the PAA , namely, ten days before the date of the assembly was scheduled to be held. This requirement of notification of the assembly is provided in s 9(1) of the PPA which reads:

"An organiser shall 10 days before the date of the assembly notify the Officer in Charge of the Police District in which the assembly is to be held."

A non-compliance with s 9(1) is penalised by s 9(5) which reads as follows:

"A person who contravene subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit."

The Prosecution's Case

[4] Briefly, the prosecution's evidence are as follows:

a) The respondent was the Executive Secretary of PKR Johor Bahru.

b) On 15 May 2013, at about 2.30pm, the respondent went to the Central Police Station at Jalan Meldrum, Johor Bahru where he handed "Permohonan Untuk Mengadakan Perjumpaan/ Perhimpunan (Lampiran 'A' KPN(PR)19/26)", (D11) to Copral Mizaleha bt Haji Othman, SP2. As an incorrect form was submitted, SP2 gave the respondent the correct form, "Borang Pemberitahuan di bawah s 9(1)", serial no 0272 and 0273, (P3). The respondent filled the particulars in P3 in the presence of SP2. He signed it at the top of his name as Setiausaha Kerja and he appended the date 11 May 2013. He immediately handed over P3 to SP2. The reciept was acknowledge on the same day, ie 15 May 2013 at about 2.39pm. The particulars of the assembly in P3 stated in Bahasa Malaysia, among other things, are as follows:

c) The assembly was called "Program Himpunan Black 505, Bantahan Terhadap SPR". It was held peaceably as scheduled.

The Defence Case

[5] The respondent gave his evidence on oath. His defence may be summarised as follows:

a) The respondent denied he was the organiser of "Program Himpunan Black 505" at Taman Puteri Wangsa, Johor Bahru on 15 May 2013.

b) He said that the assembly was organised by Majlis Pimpinan Negeri Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Negeri Johor (PKR Negeri Johor), chaired by Dato Chua Jui Meng.

c) He only signed "Borang - Pemberitahuan di bawah s 9(1)", on behalf of Dato' Chua Jui Meng.

d) He merely performed an administrative function of PKR Negeri Johor. He was the Setiausaha Kerja of the party since July, 2012.

e) He went to the Balai Polis Sentral at Jalan Meldrum, Johor Bahru where he handed Borang D11 to Copral Mizaleha bt Haji Othman, SP2. D11 was a wrong form. SP2 gave him a new and the correct form, (P3). He filled