Back
2014 MarsdenLR 597
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BHARU
YUNESWARAN RAMARAJ – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 42S-09-9-2013]
The court affirmed that an individual can be considered the organiser of an assembly under the Peaceful Assembly Act, capable of being held accountable for procedural violations.
Headnote:(A) Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 - Sections 9(1) and 9(5) - Appellant charged for failing to notify police about assembly as required - Sessions Court fined appellant RM6000.00, which was appealed. (Para 1)
(B) Definition of 'organiser' under the Act - Appellant claimed he signed notice on behalf of another, arguing he was not the organiser. (Para 4)
(C) Failure to call crucial witness - Prosecution did not call the actual organiser as a witness, leaving a gap in the case. (Para 6)
(D) Court's reasoning on unconstitutionality - Appellant's ground of appeal included the unconstitutionality of the notice requirement, which aligned with a prior ruling. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged for not notifying authorities regarding a political assembly held on May 15, 2013, while asserting he signed documents on behalf of the actual organiser.
Findings of Court:
Court agreed with the Sessions Court finding and maintained the initial fine, establishing that the appellant was indeed an organiser responsible for the assembly.
Issues: Determining who qualifies as an organiser under the Act and the implications of failing to notify authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the appellant was an organiser as per the PAA due to his actions, deeming the failure to call the other party a non-fatal error.
Result: Appeal allowed; decision of the Sessions Court set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charged under paa for failing to notify assembly. (Para 1) |
[1] The appellant in this appeal was charged in the Sessions Court, Johor Baharu, Johor Darul Takzim with an offence under s 9(1), Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (hereinafter called 'the PAA ') which is punishable under s 9(5) of the same Act . The offence carries, upon conviction, the punishment of a fine not exceeding RM10,000.00. At the conclusion of the defence case, the learned Sessions Court Judge (hereinafter called 'the learned SCJ') held that the appellant has failed to cast any reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case and sentenced the appellant to a fine of RM6000.00 and in default thereof, imprisonment of three months. The appellant appeal to this Court against conviction and sentence. On 24 August 2014, the Court after hearing submissions by both parties allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the decision of the learned SCJ and ordered that the payment of fine of RM6000.00 be refunded forthwith. Aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent has since filed an appeal to the Federal Court.
