SAYED OMEID lwn. PP [2011] 8 CLJ 501

Issue: Sama ada Mahkamah Sesyen mempunyai bidangkuasa memutuskan kesahan pertuduhan sebelum memberikan perintah ekstradisi di bawah Akta Ekstradisi 1992:

"Di dalam kes ini, sepertimana dinyatakan di atas walaupun pertuduhan-pertuduhan dikemukakan terhadap pemohon, tetapi jelas ia kekurangan dari segi butiran-butiran khusus dan penting yang sepatutnya ada di dalam pertuduhan tersebut. Kekurangan butiran-butiran tersebut menunjukkan bahawa pihak berkuasa Australia tidak dapat mempastikan dengan tepat sama ada "fugitive criminal" ada terlibat di dalam kegiatan penyeludupan manusia ke negara itu atau pun tidak. Seterusnya saya berpendapat bahawa Mahkamah Sesyen di Malaysia memang mempunyai kuasa untuk menentukan kesahihan pertuduhan-pertuduhan yang telah dikemukakan terhadap pemohon di dalam kes ini, ini berdasarkan kepada kes-kes yang telah diputuskan di atas" - Oleh Ghazali Cha H di dalam Sayed Omeid lwn. PP [2011] 8 CLJ 501 di ms 508

PP v. SHAHRUL AZUWAN ADANAN & ANOR [2013] 2 CLJ 686

Issue: On the antiquated nature of the penal provision in s. 44(1) of the Animals Act 1953 - when allowing Public Prosecutor’s appeal against sentence of RM200 fine in default 1 month jail imposed by the learned Magistrate for each of the 30 offences under the aforesaid sub-section committed by the respondents:

"As a postscript it has to be said that the punishment for animal cruelty under the Act is archaic and out of touch with reality. When the Animals Ordinance (No. 17 of 1953) was enacted 59 years ago in 1953 the penalty for animal cruelty as provided by s. 44(1) was as follows:

... a fine of two hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term of six months or to both.

When the Ordinance was revised 53 years later in 2006 by the present Act (Act 647), the penalty for animal cruelty as provided by s. 44(1)was as follows:

... a fine of two hundred ringgit or to imprisonment for a term of six months or to both.

No prize for spotting the difference but it will be interesting to see if anything will be done to rectify the situation. Having to pay a fine of two hundred dollars in 1953 would probably hurt the pocket but to pay a two hundred ringgit fine in 2012 is not even a slap on the wrist for businessmen like the respondents. If the two hundred dollars of 1953 were to be pegged against today's worth of two hundred ringgit, the fine of RM200 under the Act which has remained stagnant for the past 59 years will be more of a friendly pat on the back rather than a punishment. It cannot be the case that cruelty against animals is viewed less seriously today than it was in 1953. In my view the need to increase the penalty for animal cruelty, in particular the sentence of fine is long overdue. A substantial increase will at least give some semblance of protection to these poor defenceless creations of God." per Abdul Rahman Sebli J in PP v. Shahrul Azuwan Adanan & Anor [2013] 2 CLJ 686

(For more Judicial Quotes, please login and view under "References" or subscribe to CLJLaw.)