PENDAKWARAYA SYAMSUL ZAMAN BIN SUKRI

PENDAKWARAYA SYAMSUL ZAMAN BIN SUKRI

The session court lawfully conducted the charge mention via remote communication (Zoom) by applying Sections 101(1) and 101B of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 read with Section 3 KAJ and relevant principles of statutory interpretation; the public health circumstances (accused COVID-19 positive and pandemic risks) constituted 'other sufficient reason' to depart from physical open-court presence at the charge mention stage, and no prejudice to the accused was found for that stage.

Citation
DJ-62JSK-36-08/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecutor: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: SYAMSUL ZAMAN BIN SUKRI
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 August 2021
Case Number
DJ-62JSK-36-08/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (charge Under Sexual Offences Against Children Act) / Charge Mention by Video Conference; Application for Criminal Review to High Court (semakan Jenayah)
Outcome
Charge was read via Zoom with judicial permission; proceedings at charge mention stage held valid; High Court later upheld validity
Legal Topics
Remote Court Proceedings, Open Court Principle, Statutory Interpretation, Harmonious Construction, Judicial Discretion, Virtual Hearing Safeguards
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Procedure Evidence Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Health Law Remote Court Proceedings Open Court Principle Statutory Interpretation +3 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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecutor

SYAMSUL ZAMAN BIN SUKRI

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (charge Under Sexual Offences Against Children Act) / Charge Mention by Video Conference; Application for Criminal Review to High Court (semakan Jenayah)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reading of charge via remote communication technology (Zoom) is lawful
  2. 2 Whether the open and public court requirement (s.7 KAJ) was infringed by remote proceeding
  3. 3 Whether Sections 101 and 101B of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 (AMR) can be read with the Criminal Procedure Code (KAJ)

Ratio Decidendi

The session court lawfully conducted the charge mention via remote communication (Zoom) by applying Sections 101(1) and 101B of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 read with Section 3 KAJ and relevant principles of statutory interpretation; the public health circumstances (accused COVID-19 positive and pandemic risks) constituted 'other sufficient reason' to depart from physical open-court presence at the charge mention stage, and no prejudice to the accused was found for that stage.

Court Disposition

Charge was read via Zoom with judicial permission; proceedings at charge mention stage held valid; High Court later upheld validity

Orders

  • Permitted that the charge be read by video conference (Zoom) on 11 August 2021
  • Application for criminal review to the High Court filed regarding legality of the remote proceeding