Back
Next 
2014 MarsdenLR 242
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
YAZID SUFAAT & ORS – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: W-05-141-05-2013]
Important Points
Charges under SOSMA must involve actions threatening Malaysian security; acts solely outside Malaysia are not prosecutable as security offences.
Subject
Criminal Law - Terrorism
Act Referred
Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012: S.4
Penal Code: S.130G, S.109, S.4
Criminal Procedure Code: S.177A
Federal Constitution: S.art 149, artS.5, S.8
Penal Code: S.130G, S.109, S.4
Criminal Procedure Code: S.177A
Federal Constitution: S.art 149, artS.5, S.8
Headnote
(A) Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 - Section 4 - Penal Code - Section 130G(a) - Charges against respondents for promoting and abetting terrorism involving actions in Syria - High Court quashed charges citing lack of jurisdiction of SOSMA over acts outside Malaysia - Court found charges defective and not disclosive of an offence under the Penal Code. (Paras 13-18).
(B) Jurisdiction and Interpretation - Terrorist acts may be transnational; however, actions must threaten Malaysia to invoke SOSMA - The provisions of SOSMA cannot be applied to acts taking place solely outside Malaysia. (Paras 24-25).
Facts of the case:
Public Prosecutor appealed against High Court's decision acquitting respondents of security offences related to terrorism committed outside Malaysia. Respondents were charged under SOSMA while the acts alleged did not pertain to threats within Malaysia.
Findings of Court:
High Court erred in holding charges against respondents as an abuse of process—charges lacked connection to Malaysia and were thus unjustified.
Issues: Whether the charges disclose an offence under the Penal Code and if SOSMA applies to acts committed outside Malaysia.
Ratio Decidendi: Charges must plainly refer to acts threatening Malaysian security; SOSMA does not extend jurisdiction extraterritorially.
Result: Appeal allowed; charges against respondents reinstated for trial.
(B) Jurisdiction and Interpretation - Terrorist acts may be transnational; however, actions must threaten Malaysia to invoke SOSMA - The provisions of SOSMA cannot be applied to acts taking place solely outside Malaysia. (Paras 24-25).
Facts of the case:
Public Prosecutor appealed against High Court's decision acquitting respondents of security offences related to terrorism committed outside Malaysia. Respondents were charged under SOSMA while the acts alleged did not pertain to threats within Malaysia.
Findings of Court:
High Court erred in holding charges against respondents as an abuse of process—charges lacked connection to Malaysia and were thus unjustified.
Issues: Whether the charges disclose an offence under the Penal Code and if SOSMA applies to acts committed outside Malaysia.
Ratio Decidendi: Charges must plainly refer to acts threatening Malaysian security; SOSMA does not extend jurisdiction extraterritorially.
Result: Appeal allowed; charges against respondents reinstated for trial.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against high court's decision. (Para 1) |
[1] This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the High Court, Shah Alam allowing a joint application by the respondents by way of a Notice of Motion:
(i) to set aside and/quash or stay permanently the charges against them in exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction; and
(ii) that the respondents be acquitted and discharged of the said charges.
