SARAJUN HODA BIN ABDUL HASSAN

SARAJUN HODA BIN ABDUL HASSAN

Applicant failed to discharge the burden to show sections 233(1)(a) and 233(3) unconstitutional; the provisions are sufficiently clear, not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, are a reasonable and proportionate restriction within Article 10(2)(a) to protect public order and morals, there is no evidence of arbitrary enforcement, and therefore the referral and stay applications are dismissed and criminal proceedings continue.

Citation
AB-62CY-2-08/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDakwa RAYA; Accused: Sarajun Hoda bin Abdul Hassan
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 June 2022
Case Number
AB-62CY-2-08/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (challenge to Constitutionality of Statutory Provision Under Communications and Multimedia Act 1998) / Pre Trial Application to Refer Constitutional Question; Referral and Stay Applications Decided
Outcome
Application to refer constitutional questions dismissed; application to stay proceedings dismissed; trial ordered to proceed.
Legal Topics
Section 233 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, Freedom of Expression, Vagueness and Overbreadth, Proportionality, Presumption of Constitutionality, Stay of Proceedings, Referral to Higher Court
Source Language
Malay/English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Communications and Multimedia Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Section 233 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Freedom of Expression Vagueness and Overbreadth +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDakwa RAYA

Prosecution

Sarajun Hoda bin Abdul Hassan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (challenge to Constitutionality of Statutory Provision Under Communications and Multimedia Act 1998) / Pre Trial Application to Refer Constitutional Question; Referral and Stay Applications Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 233(1)(a) and 233(3) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 are unconstitutional as vague, subjective and overbroad
  2. 2 Whether sections 233(1)(a) and 233(3) unlawfully restrict freedom of speech contrary to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the statutory restriction is proportionate and permissible under Article 10(2)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to discharge the burden to show sections 233(1)(a) and 233(3) unconstitutional; the provisions are sufficiently clear, not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, are a reasonable and proportionate restriction within Article 10(2)(a) to protect public order and morals, there is no evidence of arbitrary enforcement, and therefore the referral and stay applications are dismissed and criminal proceedings continue.

Court Disposition

Application to refer constitutional questions dismissed; application to stay proceedings dismissed; trial ordered to proceed.

Orders

  • Notice of application to refer sections 233(1)(a) and 233(3) to High Court/Federal Court dismissed
  • Application to suspend/stay the Sessions Court Taiping proceedings dismissed