The right to assemble peacefully is fundamental but subject to reasonable restrictions for public order, validated by the Police Act 1967.

[1] In this appeal the 5 appellants are appealing against both their convictions and sentences for being found in an unlawful assembly in respect of which a police permit had not been obtained under s 27(2) of the Police Act 1967 (Act 344) (the "Act").

[2] The convictions and sentences were handed down after a full trial by the learned Magistrate on 18 June 2009 in the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate's Court involving 5 separate cases, ie Arrest Cases Nos: E83-1283, 1285, 1287, 1289 and 1295-2001, which were jointly tried.

[3] Two other accused persons, namely, Wan Mohd Sanusi Bin Wan Mohd Noor and Helman Bin Sanuddin, (the "2 other accused persons"), who were also charged separately in the same Court, in Arrest Cases Nos.: E83-1291-2001 and E83-1293-2001, respectively, but who were also tried together with the 5 appellants, were acquitted and discharged.

[4] In all the 7 cases, the 5 appellants and the 2 other accused persons were first charged on 19 July 2001 for having committed an offence under s 27(5) of the Act punishable under s 27 (8) of the Act.

[5] The punishment provided in s 27(8) of the Act for the offence is a fine of not less than two thousand ringgit and not more than ten thousand ringgit and the offender is also liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

[6] The learned Magistrate had sentenced each of them to a fine of RM 3,900/- in default 3 months imprisonment. The fine has been paid by each of the 5 appellants.

The Charge

[7] The charge against each of the 5 appellants and the 2 other accused persons states as follows in the Malay language:

"Bahawa kamu pada 8 Jun 2001 diantara jam 2.00 petang hingga 2.15 petang, di perkarangan Masjid Negara, Jalan Perdana, dalam Daerah Dang Wangi, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Kumpur telah di dapati berada dalam satu perhimpunan haram (unlawful assembly) iaitu satu perhimpunan di tempat awam di mana lesen di bawah s 27(2) Akta Polis 1967 (Akta 344) tidak di keluarkan, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 27(5) Akta Polis 1967 (Akta 344) dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 27(8) Akta yang sama."

The Appellants' 6 Grounds Of Appeal

[8] The 5 appellants have put forth the following 6 grounds of appeal in their petition of appeal dated 21 July 2010:

(1) Section 27 (5) of the Act read together with s 27(2) of the Act is unconstitutional because it is inconsistent with Articles 5, 8,10(1)(b) and 10(2)(b) of the Federal Constitution;

(2) The learned Magistrate erred when she neither recalled those witnesses who had testified before the previous Magistrate to give evidence before her nor gave her reasons pursuant to s 261 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the "CPC") as to why she did not exercise his discretion to order the 5 cases to be heard de novo since she was not the Magistrate who had heard the testimonies of those witnesses;

(3) The learned Magistrate erred when she applied the principle enunciated in the case of Mat v. PP , only to the defence of the 6th accused, namely, Helman Bin Sanuddin, but did not apply it to the defence of each of the 5 appellants as she did not state in her grounds of judgment whether she believed or accepted the defence of all the 5 appellants and if she did not believe or accept the defence of the 5 appellants whether their defence had, nevertheless, raised a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and and if she was so satisfied the 5 appellants were entitled to be acquitted and discharged;

(4) The learned Magistrate erred when upon the conclusion of the trial she did not undertake a maximum evaluation of the totality of the prosecution and defence cases in order to determine whether the prosecution had proved the charge against the 5