The 377B Decision We Waited For

The Court of Appeal does an about turn and issues its scintillating grounds of judgment on the Abdul Rahim Bin Abd Rahaman appeal about the constitutionality of section 377A and 377B of the Penal Code, and punishment of whipping for males.

It would appear complaining has some semblance of use. After lamenting about the ducks in the court of appeal and about written grounds being optional, the Court of Appeal has issued its judgment after initially declining to issue grounds because it supposedly did not arise. Since we were the counsels for this matter, Amer and I shall refrain from comment on the Abdul Rahim Abd Rahaman Decision and let you consider it for yourself.

The list of authorities relied on by Amer and I at the hearing of appeal are as follows:

Merdeka University Berhad v. Government of Malaysia [1981] CLJ 175
Public Prosecutor v. Khong Teng Khen [1976] 2 MLJ 166
Badan Peguam Malaysia v. Kerajaan Malaysia [2008] 1 CLJ 833
Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v. Kekatong Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 CLJ 701
Sheridan & Groves, The Constitution of Malaysia, 5th Edition, Malayan Law Journal, 2004, page 89
Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris v. Public Prosecutor [1977] 2 MLJ 155
R v. Leo de Cruz [1935] MLJ 1
Bachik Abdul Rahman v. PP [2004] 2 CLJ 572
PP v. Teo Heng Chye [1990] 3 CLJ (Rep) 904
PP v. Shari Mohd Shariff [2005] 5 CLJ 439
Jamil Jaya Said v. PP [2009] 5 CLJ 244
Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1953
Zaidon Shariff v. PP [1996] 4 CLJ 441
Permbangunan Maha Murni Sdn Bhd v. Jururus Ladang Sdn Bhd [1986] 2 MLJ 30
Section 57 of the Evidence Act 1950
Public Prosecutor v. Sharma Kumari [2000] 6 MLJ 254
Article 8 and 10 of the Federal Constitution
Section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia [2010] 3 CLJ 507
Naz Foundation (India) Trust v. Government of NCT Delhi WP (C) No. 7455/2001)
Lee Kwan Woh v Public Prosecutor [2009] 5 CLJ 631
Mt. Choki v The State (1957) Cri LJ 102
Ramchandra Mahton and Anor v State of Bihar and Ors, AIR 1966 Patna 214
Public Prosecutor v Khong Teng Khen [1976] 2 MLJ 166
Bindra’s Interpretation of Statutes, 10th edn, pp. 1269-1273
Kathi Rasing v State of Saurashtra AIR (39) 1952
Assa Singh v Menteri Besar, Johore [1969] 2 MLJ 30
B. Surinder Singh Kanda v the Government of the Federation of Malaya [1962] 28 MLJ 170

LB: Fahri Azzat was a Tyrannosaurus Rex named ‘Bob’ in his previous life during the tail end of the Cretaceous period and was reincarnated as a 21st century LoyarBurokker despite being imbued with the character and abilities of a late 19th century dilettante dandy. His current ambition right this very moment is to wear a top hat and coat tails while shopping for fake luxury watches at Petaling Street on a hot day.

Tags: , ,

Posts by

Fahri Azzat practices the dark arts of the law. Although he enjoys writing and reading, he doesn't enjoy writing his own little biographies of himself. Like this one. He wished somebody else would do it for him. He has little taste in writing about himself in third person. He feels weird doing it. But the part he finds most tedious is having to pad up the lack of his accomplishments, or share some interesting facts about his rather uneventful life, as if there were some who found that oh-so-interesting; as if he were some famous person, like Michael Jackson. When he writes these biographies, the thought, 'Wei, Jangan Perasaan- ah!' lights up in his head. So he usually just lists what he got involved with, positions he held and blah, blah. But this time. Right here. Right this very moment. Uhuh. This one. This one right here. He's finally telling it like it is.

Posted on 30 August 2010. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.

Read more articles posted by .

Read this first: LB Terms of Use

11 Responses to The 377B Decision We Waited For