The prosecution appealed the high court's decision to acquit and discharge three respondents charged with security offenses. The first respondent was charged with promoting terrorism in Syria, while the second and third respondents were charged with abetting the first. The high court ruled the charges could not be tried under SOSMA since the alleged acts occurred outside Malaysia, but the court of appeal overturned this decision, finding SOSMA does apply to security offenses committed overseas. The court of appeal set aside the high court's orders and remitted the case back for trial.
The prosecution appealed the high court's decision to acquit and discharge three respondents charged with security offenses. The first respondent was charged with promoting terrorism in Syria, while the second and third respondents were charged with abetting the first. The high court ruled the charges could not be tried under SOSMA since the alleged acts occurred outside Malaysia, but the court of appeal overturned this decision, finding SOSMA does apply to security offenses committed overseas. The court of appeal set aside the high court's orders and remitted the case back for trial.
The prosecution appealed the high court's decision to acquit and discharge three respondents charged with security offenses. The first respondent was charged with promoting terrorism in Syria, while the second and third respondents were charged with abetting the first. The high court ruled the charges could not be tried under SOSMA since the alleged acts occurred outside Malaysia, but the court of appeal overturned this decision, finding SOSMA does apply to security offenses committed overseas. The court of appeal set aside the high court's orders and remitted the case back for trial.
1. This was an appeal by the prosecution against the decision of the high court in acquitting and discharging the respondents from charges proferred against them. 2. The respondents were arrested under section 4 of Security Offence (Special Measure) Act 2012 (SOSMA) and were separately charge for security offences under section 130G(a) of the Penal Code(the Code). 3. The first respondent was charged for promoting an act of terrorism and that act was regarded as being intended as a threat to the members of the public in Syria. 4. The second and third respondents were charged for abetting the first respondent. 5. The second respondent was not present during this appeal as there was no foreseeable likelihood of securing her present after she was acquitted by the high court. 6. However, this appeal proceeded against the first entered respondent. 7. The respondent contended that SOSMA was enacted according to article 149 of the Federal Constitution to deal with action or threat committed within Malaysia by any substantial body of person from inside or outside Malaysia. 8. The High Court ruled that the charges against the respondents were related to acts of terrorism committed outside Malaysia and since SOSMA was enacted to deal with action or threat committed within Malaysia. It clearly did not apply to the respondents trial for offences relating to acts of terrorism committed outside Malaysia. 9. The High Court further ruled that should the prosecution proceed with the seek charges against the respondents by invoking the provision in SOSMA. It would be an abuse of the process of court. 10. Thus, the trial court had set aside and quashed or stayed permanently the charges against the respondent. Hence, this appeal by the prosecution. Held: The court allowed the appeal by the prosecutor and set aside all the orders of the High Court. The court make a further order that the respondents case be remitted to the High Court Shah Alam for the said court to set the date for trial. Opinion: I agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal that set aside the orders of High Court as section 2 of SOSMA states that the procedure laid down in SOSMA applies to the trial of any person charged with committing any security offence under Chapter VIA of the Code. The learned judge in High Court therefore erred in holding that it would be an abuse of the process of court to invoke the provisions in SOSMA for the purpose of the respondents trial for security offences under s. 130G(a) read with s.109 of the Penal Code. Legislation: Criminal Procedure Code, s. 177A, Federal Constitution, arts. 5, 8, 149, Penal Code, ss. 4, 109, 130B(2), (5)(b), 140G(a), Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, ss. 2, 4, 12, 13.
Kenneth Dean Austin v. Howard Ray, Warden, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center and Attorney General of The State of Oklahoma, 124 F.3d 216, 10th Cir. (1997)