Back
2020 MarsdenLR 2865
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MUSTAZA ABDUL RAHMAN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: W-06A(SH)-2-01-2018]
The court affirmed the conviction for supporting terrorism through social media while clarifying obligations of reporting under criminal law, guided by recent Federal Court interpretations.
Headnote:(A) Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 – Act 747 – Penal Code – Sections 130J(1)(a), 130J(1)(b), 130G(c), and 130M – The appellant was convicted of three terrorism-related offences, including providing support to a terrorist organization through social media – Conviction for second charge set aside under interpretation of 'legally bound' in light of recent Federal Court ruling. (Paras 36-39)
(B) The conversations in the Telegram chat group illustrated discussions of raising funds and support for terrorist activities, substantiating the charge under s 130J. (Paras 30-32)
Facts of the case: The appellant, a policeman, was found guilty of supporting terrorist acts through applications like Telegram and failing to provide crucial information despite obligations. The evidence included conversations where he encouraged further terrorism. (Paras 1-5)
Findings of Court: The appellant was found guilty under charges related to his social media interactions and swore allegiance to a terrorist group while failing in his duty to report potential misconduct. (Paras 21-24)
Issues: The issues revolved around the identity of the accused, his support for terrorist acts, his obligation to report acts to authorities, and the validity of the oath of allegiance he posted. (Paras 23, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that mere membership in a terrorist chat group constituted sufficient reason to infer knowledge of terrorism offences, and the act of swearing loyalty was deemed valid based on intention despite its format. (Paras 41-47)
Result: Convictions on the first and third charges affirmed with sentences reduced, second charge conviction overturned.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The appellant was charged with committing three offences relating to terrorism. The charges read as follows:
First Charge
Bahawa kamu pada 28 Jun 2016, jam lebih kurang 6.44 pagi, di Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Kuala Muda, Sungai Petani, dalam daerah Kuala Muda, dalam negeri Kedah, dengan pengetahuan, telah memberi sokongan kepada berlakunya perbuatan pengganas yang melibatkan penggunaan bahan letupan melalui aplikasi Telegram di dalam kumpulan perbualan 'Amanah(phb) v. PAS (ID: 143486835)' dengan menggunakan nombor telefon 013-283 9894 milik kamu sepertimana di LAMPIRAN; dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 130J(1)(b) Kanun Keseksaan yang boleh dihukum di bawah peruntukan yang sama.
Second Charge
Bahawa kamu di antara 30 Mac 2016 hingga 29 Jun 2016, di Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Kuala Muda, Sungai Petani, dalam daerah Kuala Muda, dalam Negeri Kedah, yang mempunyai sebab untuk mempercayai bahawa kesalahan - kesalahan di bawah s 130G(c) Kanun Keseksaan, s 130J(1)(a) Kanun Keseksaan dan s 130J(1)(b) Kanun Keseksaan telah dilakukan, dengan sengaja meninggalkan daripada memberi apa-apa maklumat berkenaan dengan kesalahan -kesalahan itu, yang kamu terpaksa memberi di sisi undang - undang, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 130M Kanun Keseksaan.
Bahawa kamu pada 30 Mac 2016 jam lebih kurang 12.25 pagi, di Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Kuala Muda, Sungai Petani, dalam daerah Kuala Muda, dalam negeri Kedah, dengan pengetahuan telah memberi sokongan kepada Kumpulan Pengganas Islamic State dengan cara melakukan sumpah setia (berbai'ah) seperti di LAMPIRAN, melalui aplikasi Telegram di dalam kumpulan perbualan 'gagak hitam (ID: 146761651)' dengan menggunakan nombor telefon 013-283 9894 milik kamu; dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 130J(1)(a) Kanun Keseksaan yang boleh dihukum di bawah peruntukan yang sama.
[2] He claimed trial to all three charges. The trial was conducted under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Act 747). At the end of the case, the appellant was convicted on all three charges. He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for each of the three charges. All the terms of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
Prosecution's Case
[3] The appellant was a serving policeman at the material time. The offences were allegedly committed by him in the course of chatting in a social media application known as Telegram. This application can be used on a handphone.
[4] The main witness for the prosecution was ST1. The trial court granted "protected witness" status to him under s 6 of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Act 747). He became a member of a secretive chat group on Telegram which was named "Gagak Hitam". The group had 45 members including the appellant and (ST1). All the members were added by the administrator of the group who used the nickname "Akhi Wandy". His real name was Mohammad Wandy bin Mohamed Jedi. He was an operative of the terrorist group known as the "Islamic State" and was based in Syria. ST1 preserved all the conversations between the members in this chat group. They were printed and tendered in court. The High court Judge noted that the members actively discussed various terrorism related topics such as becoming a terrorist on social media platform, making bombs, starting an insurrection in Malaysia, blowing up police stations and the like. The members also shared "Islamic State" news and propaganda material on the chat group.
[5] After the arrest of some members by the police, Akhi Wandy shut down the "Gagak Hitam" chat group and started a new one with the name of "Amanah (PHB) v. PAS". He added the former members of the "Gagak Hitam" chat group. These included ST1 and the appellant. The members discussed similar terrorism related topics as before and shared "Islamic State" news and propaganda material. Again, ST1 diligently s
