Samat Bin Yamin

Samat Bin Yamin

Section 13(2) of SOSMA is constitutionally valid: the gender/age/infirmity classification is an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to SOSMA's objective of preventing threats to public order and is proportionate; sections 26A and 26D ATIPSOM properly constitute security offences within SOSMA; Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the bail application; therefore the applicant's Notice of Motion for bail was dismissed.

Citation
07-8-06/2022(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Applicant: Samat bin Yamin; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
B
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 October 2022
Case Number
07-8-06/2022(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Bail (federal Court, Appellate Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Bail Application; Preliminary Objection Heard and Determined
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Bail, Security Offences (sosma) Section 13, Equality (article 8), Proportionality, Security Offences (atipsom), Statutory Interpretation, Jurisdiction, Inherent Powers
Source Language
Malay/English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Public Law Human Rights Bail Security Offences (sosma) Section 13 Equality (article 8) Proportionality +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 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samat bin Yamin

Applicant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Bail (federal Court, Appellate Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Bail Application; Preliminary Objection Heard and Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 13(1) and (2) SOSMA breaches Article 8 equality by discriminating on gender
  2. 2 Whether section 13 SOSMA is disproportionate and breaches Article 8 (proportionality test)
  3. 3 Whether offences under sections 26A and 26D ATIPSOM properly fall within SOSMA (security offences)

Ratio Decidendi

Section 13(2) of SOSMA is constitutionally valid: the gender/age/infirmity classification is an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to SOSMA's objective of preventing threats to public order and is proportionate; sections 26A and 26D ATIPSOM properly constitute security offences within SOSMA; Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the bail application; therefore the applicant's Notice of Motion for bail was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Notice of Motion for bail dismissed