PP vs KHAIRUDDIN ABU HASSAN & ANOR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 MarsdenLR 3175

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
KHAIRUDDIN ABU HASSAN & ANOR – Respondent

Table of Content
1. summary of sosma enactment and its context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. procedural background of the case. (Para 5 , 7 , 9)
3. constitutional and statutory interpretation principles. (Para 8 , 12 , 14)
4. the respondents are charged with an attempt to sabotage financial services, raising intricate legal definitions under sosma. (Para 13)

[1] This was an appeal by the prosecution against the decision of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur in allowing the notice of motion filed by Khairuddin Abu Hassan and Matthias Chang Weng Chieh (the respondents) for among others an order that they be released on bail. For the reasons that follow, we had unanimously dismissed the appeal.

The Background Facts

[2] On 31 July 2012, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ( SOSMA ) which was enacted by Parliament under Art 149(1) of the Federal Constitution came into force. Article 149(1) of the Federal Constitution reads:

"Legislation against subversion, action prejudicial to public order, etc.

149. (1) If an Act of Parliament recites that action has been taken or threatened by any substantial body of persons, whether inside or outside the Federation -

(a) to cause, or to cause a subst

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 3175

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAPP – AppellantVersusKHAIRUDDIN ABU HASSAN & ANOR – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
KHAIRUDDIN ABU HASSAN & ANOR – Respondent