GIFT FROM VIETNAM

RECENTLY I WENT TO VISIT A CLIENT IN THEIR OFFICE.THE SEE-TAU-POH(LADY BOSS) HAD JUST RETURNED FROM VIETNAM AND THIS IS  THE GIFT SHE GAVE ME AS AN APPRECIATION FOR WINNING THEIR COMPANY'S  CASE.

THURSDAY'S FINAL TUTORIAL

LAWYERS DIANA, LIM JUSTINE AND KAREN WONG.MAY ALL YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE!!ALL GOOD THINGS WILL COME YOUR WAY.

MR.. ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR, MOHD ALIFF- YOU HAVE A GREAT FUTURE-PENUH HARAPAN.KEEP GOING!!!!-Vj

PEGUAMBELA & PEGUAMCARA  PUAN  HAZIALIANA,SAYIDAH, NOORSAKINAH, NADIAH , NUR NADIAH. --ONWARD WITH THE LEGAL JOURNEY!!! ALL  GOOD THINGS WILL HAPPEN FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY!!!

PEGUAMBELA & PEGUAMCARA ENCIK IMRAN, NG CHIN WERN( Suspected to be the  grandson of Ng Chin Peng) MOHD HISYAMHILMI, MOHD ALIFF, MOHD NOORHALIM & MOHD IMRAN.

THE FUTURE YANG ARIFF OF MAHKAMAH TINGGI KUALA LUMPUR-  IT WILL DEFINITELY HAPPEN!!!

THE LAST TUTORIAL FOR 2010!!

 

DEFINITELY KHUWARIZMI  HAS THE LOOKS OF A DPP!!!MR. CHIN HOE SIANG - THIS IS THE WEDNESDY CLASS BETWEEN 6-7 P.M. BEGINNING FROM BACK ROW FROM THE RIGHT IS MISS PAULINE, MISS MAR, MR FUAD(  I DONT KNOW WHY, HE ALWAYS REMINDS ME OF SUDIRMAN- THAT MALAYSIAN LEGEND!!! )  FRONT ROW IS MR. KHUWARIZMI AND MR CHIN HOE SIANG. PROFESSOR!!!

THIS IS THE WEDNESDY CLASS BETWEEN 6-7 P.M. BEGINNING FROM BACK ROW FROM THE RIGHT IS MISS PAULINE, MISS MAR & MR FUAD(  I DONT KNOW WHY, HE ALWAYS REMINDS ME OF SUDIRMAN- THAT MALAYSIAN LEGEND!!! )  FRONT ROW IS MR. KHUWARIZMI AND MR CHIN HOE SIANG.

 I BELIEVE ALL OF YOU WILL GO VERY FAR IN LIFE. MAY ALL YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE!!!

AHEM!!! IS THERE SOME MYSTERY IN THE AIR??  ENCIK  LAWYER ANAND- ENGKAU TENGOK APA?? --[10 YEARS FROM NOW HIGH COURT JUDGES =YANG ARIF DARNISA & YANG ARIF MATTHEW & YANG ARIF- MATHAN RAJ!! ! ALL THINSGS ARE POSSIBLE!!!]

NOW THESE ARE 3 PLEASANT WOULD BE LAWYERS!!

PUAN LAWYER ZURAIHA!!! ( AUTHOR OF BLOGTITLE- YOU ARE MY EVERYTHING!!!)

YOU MUST BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THIS. ALL OF YOU ALREADY LOOK LIKE LAWYERS.ALL THAT YOU NEED NOW IS SOME REAL COURT EXPERIENCE- AND YOU WILL BE THERE!!!   (Puan Anisa- sekarang baru nak tulis???)

UM LAW FACULTY HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT AQUILA BINTI LOKMAN SCORED AAA FOR ALL HER SUBJECTS AND  SHE CANNOT CONTROL HER EXCITEMENT!!!( PERASAAN SAJA!!!)

EXAM BLUES

THIS FACE REMINDED ME OF A STUDENT WHO WAS LOOKING  AT AN EXAM PAPER ON FAMILY LAW LAST YEAR. I SINCERELY HOPE THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN TO YOU. -vj

Abdul Aziz Bin Mohd Alias

Suatu deklarasi bahawa pembungan kerja plaintif daripada Polis Di Raja Malaysia oleh defendan pertama melalui surat bertarikh 25.4.1997 yang diterima oleh plaintif pada 30.4.1997 adalah batal

dan tidak sah, tidak berakibat atau berefek dan plaintif masih seorang ahli Polis Di Raja Malaysia dengan pangkat Cif Inspektor;

THIS WEEKS TUTORIAL- 27&28 OCTOBER 2010

Write a critical commentary on the recent Malaysian Federal Court cases, starting with Lee Kwan Woh v Public Prosecutor [2009] 5 MLJ 30, and ending with Abdul Aziz bin Mohd Alias v Timbalan Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia & Kerajaan Malaysia (Feb. 2010) (not reported yet). Analyse them from the perspective of public law. In so far as the case law developments are concerned, please speculate on the possible future trends and directions of Malaysian public law.

(15 marks)

READING MATERIAL FOR EXAMS & ASSIGNMENTS

THE MALAYAN LAW JOURNAL 2008 VOLUME 6

AN OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHT  TO LIFE UNDER THE MALAYSIAN FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

Demurrer

A demurrer is a pleading in a lawsuit that objects to an earlier pleading filed by an opposing party. The word demur means "to object"; a demurrer is the document that makes the objection. Typically, the defendant will demur to the complaint, but it is also possible for plaintiff to demur to an answer. The demurrer challenges the "legal sufficiency" of a claim, cause of action, or defense. If a cause of action in a complaint does not state a cognizable claim or if it does not state all the required elements, then the complaint can be knocked out with a demurrer. A demurrer is filed near the beginning of a case during the pleading phase.

[ the above is not original with VJ but accessed from Google]

MABO'S HISTORY

Court High Court of Australia


Full case name Mabo and Another v The State of Queensland and Another

Date decided December 8, 1988

Citations (1988) 166 CLR 186, [1988] HCA 69

Judges sitting Mason CJ, Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson Toohey & Gaudron JJ

Case history

Prior actions none

Subsequent actions Mabo v Queensland (No 2)

Case opinions

 The demurrer would be allowed (per Brennan, Deane, Toohey & Gaudron JJ)

 The Coast Islands Act was inconsistent with s10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and was thus invalid

EHRR

EHRR---meaning------ European Human Rights Reports

EHRR---meaning------- Essex Human Rights Review (journal)

[2006] UKHL 15

85. There were two Convention rights that, it is contended, were infringed; first, Shabina's "freedom to manifest her religion" (article 9.2 of the Convention), and, second, Shabina's "right to education" (article 2 of the First Protocol).


Article 9.2
86. "Freedom to manifest one's religion" does not mean that one has the right to manifest one's religion at any time and in any place and in any manner that accords with one's beliefs. In Kalaç v Turkey (1997) 27 EHRR, 552, para 27, the Strasbourg court said that

"… in exercising his freedom to manifest his religion, an individual may need to take his specific situation into account."

And in Ahmad v United Kingdom (1981) 4 EHRR 126, para 11, the Commission said that

"… the freedom of religion … may, as regards the modality of a particular religious manifestation, be influenced by the situation of the person claiming that freedom."

Judgments - R (on the application of Begum (by her litigation friend, Rahman)) (Respondent) v. Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School (Appellants

"If a woman freely chooses to adopt a way of life for herself, it is not for others, including other women who have chosen differently, to criticise or prevent her. Judge Tulkens, in Sahin v Turkey, at p 46, draws the analogy with freedom of speech. The European Court of Human Rights has never accepted that interference with the right of freedom of expression is justified by the fact that the ideas expressed may offend someone. Likewise, the sight of a woman in full purdah may offend some people, and especially those western feminists who believe that it is a symbol of her oppression, but that could not be a good reason for prohibiting her from wearing it"

THIS WEEKS TUTORIAL [20 & 21ST OCTOBER 2010]

PAST YEARS QUESTION

 

You are required to revisit and review the following cases.

R (on the application of Begum (by her litigation friend, Rahman)) (Respondent) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School (Appellant)  [2006] UKHL 15; and

Fatimah bte Sihi & Ors v Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors (minors, suing through Syed Ahmad Johari bin Syed Mohd)  [2005] 2 MLJ 25, (CA); [2006] 4 MLJ 605, (FC).

Discuss and analyse the law laid down in the above cases in the light of recent developments taking place in the common law countries with regard to the issue in dispute, viz., an act, rule or decision is being challenged in an application for judicial review on the ground that it unjustifiably interferes with a human or fundamental right of the applicant.

15 MARKS

Article 9 FC

1.No citizen shall be banished or excluded from the Federation.

2.Subject to Clause (3) and to any law relating to the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order, public health, or the punishment of offenders, every citizen has the right to move freely throughout the Federation and to reside in any part thereof.

3.So long as under this Constitution any other State is in a special position as compared with the States of Malaya, Parliament may by law impose restrictions, as between that State and other States, on the rights conferred by Clause (2) in respect of movement and residence.

IMPORTANT PHRASES TO USE

THE PLAINTIFFS RIGHTS BOTH UNDER COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY LAW ARE PROPRIETY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER ART13 OF THE FC WHICH MANDATES THAT ALL ACQUISITION OF PROPRIETY RIGHTS SHALL BE COMPENSATED.
( use the terminology " which  mandates".This is the proper word to use when commenting on the FC-however, it is not exhaustive)

THE  ABOVE PRINCIPLE WAS LAID DOWN IN RABINDRA KUMAR V FOREST OFFICE AIR 1955 MANIPUIR 49; SELANGOR PILOT ASSOCIATION (1946) V GOVERMENT OF MALAYSIA [1975] 2 MLJ 66 & S.KULASINGHAM & ANOR V COMMISSIONER OF LANDS , FEDERAL TERRITORY [1982] 1 MLJ

IMPORTANT PHRASES TO USE

SECTION 11 OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES ACT 1954 GUARANTEES ADEQUATE COMPENSATION FOR LAND, BEARING RUBBER OR FRUIT TREES CLAIMED BY THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLE THAT IS ALIENATED.

IMPORTANT PHRASES TO USE

'native title' is the right of the natives to continue to live on their land as their forefathers had done. Although in the general sense title depends on a document, native title is not document-based but a right acquired in law- by  way of land occupied since time immemorial or rooted in antiquity.

REMEMBER:  do not quote wholesale words from  this blog- copy/borrow/improvise the substance and redraft it in your own unique style. You are unique-different from anyone on this earth- therefore produce a work that  is unique to you.

[1991]CLJ486.

To answer the tutorial answers throughly, students need to read the case that has important implications for the Orang Asli Communities - Koperasi Kijang Mas v. Kerajaan Negeri Perak.

THE TRIAL OF TEOH BENG HOCK'S CASE

LAWYER: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?

DR.PORNTIP: No.

LAWYER: Did you check for blood pressure?

DR.PORNTIP: No.

LAWYER: Did you check for breathing?

DR.PORNTIP: No.

LAWYER: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?

DR.PORNTIP: No.

LAWYER: How can you be so sure, Doctor?

PORNTIP: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.

LAWYER: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?

PORNTIP: Yes,it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

THIS WEEKS TUTORIAL.

About 6 months ago, some twenty farming families had their crops destroyed and livelihood deprived when they were forcefully evicted from their farms which they had occupied and toiled for the past 50 years. The affected farms occupied an area of agricultural land measuring some 20 hectares. Each farming family occupied about one hectare of land. The land is Johore. The raid was conducted by some officials and staff from the local Land Office with the aid of some police officers.

During the raid, there was a tense standoff between the affected farmers and the raiding party. The farmers tried to negotiate with the Land Office officials, but the officials concerned were in no mood to compromise. They moved in quickly by force. They destroyed everything including shelters and farm equipments. Also present in the raiding party were some heavily armed policemen. They threatened the farmers with arrest and detention if they resisted. The village headman, Mr. A, was taken into custody during the raid when he interfered with the demolition work.

According to Mr. A, prior to the ugly incident, a huge notice board was erected at the affected land notifying the farmers of the need to move out of the land quickly. This happened a couple of months before the raiding party descended on the farms.

Prior to the demolition, the Land Office, as usual, collected the Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) renewal fee from the affected farmers. But they were told to wait for the approval because their applications for renewal were pending consideration by the relevant authority.

After the eviction, the affected farmers desperately pleaded with the authorities, including their elected representatives, to be relocated to any site nearby in the district where they could continue to earn their livelihood as farmers. Unfortunately, their pleas fell on deaf ears. Nearly all the affected farmers are jobless after the eviction.

Frustrated with the fruitless process of engaging the authorities and fully aware of the total lack of commitment and sincerity on the part of the authorities concerned, the affected farmers turned to the High Court and commenced a class action against the Land Office and the State Government in tort and trespass and also for breach of promises. They also claim damages for loss of livelihood as well as any other appropriate consequential relief. Also included in the application is a prayer for an order to be issued to the State Government to relocate the affected farmers to a suitable piece of land in the district where they reside so that they can continue to earn their living as farmers.

The State Legal Adviser applied to the court to strike out the application of the affected farmers on the ground that it has no basis in law. This is because TOL licensees acquire no interest whatsoever in the land they occupy. They must gracefully leave the land they occupy once the licence expires. He also seriously doubted whether the applicants have any locus standi to bring their dispute with the Land Office to the High Court.

Advise the affected farmers accordingly.

Article 149

 { students are advised to  be familiar with not only with Art 5 & 8 but also with Art149- Case in point is Ahmad Yani}

 Article 149 gives power to the Parliament to pass laws to suspend a person's fundamental rights vested to him in Part II of the Constitution if the Parliament believes that the person is a threat to national security or public order notwithstanding the fact that the laws are conflicting with Article 5, 9, 10 and 13 and 79.

The laws passed to the effect of this article include, to name a few:

• Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Revised 1980)
• Internal Security Act 1960 (Revised 1972)
• Official Secrets Act 1972
• Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984
• Sedition Act 1948 (Revised 1969)
• Universities and University Colleges Act 1971n

The Acts mentioned above recognize the death penalty, the detention without trial, the caning and the silencing of people critical to the government to be lawful although they contradict with the articles on fundamental rights in Part II of the Constitution

What is public interest litigation?

 Public interest litigation involves the legal actions by private citizens in courts to seek remedies against public wrongs committed by government or public bodies. 

It is an adjudication of disputes between private individuals and the state initiated to promote the public good in terms of society as a whole.

Public interest litigation mainly involves a violation of the fundamental  rights of  a citizen as enshrined in the FC.It becomes public interest because if one persons right has been violated by any public bodies or tribunals, that this becomes a precedent affecting all citizens in future. Therefore the action or decision of the particular body is challenged because the public will be affected in the future.


One recurring troublesome area in  Malaysia is Art 5 of the FC- no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with the law. What happens when a citizen is not given access to a counsel? Just when can an accused have access to a counsel? If you are arrested on a charge- exactly when can you see a lawyer? What happens when Art 149 is invoked by the PP? This is one example of public interest .

THE 24TH SULTAN RAZA AZLAN SHAH LAW LECTURE

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS, THE SULTAN OF PERAK IN PERSON

THE FUTURE PEGUAMBELA & PEGUAMCARA . WELCOME TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION.

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

POSIBLY THE FUTURE MAGISTRATES AND  DEPUTY PUBLIC PROSECUTORS

UNDATE-THURSDAY

FOR TODAYS TUTORIAL - WE WILL BE REVISITING WEDNESBURY CORPORATION AND CCSU CASE.  THE CASE CITATION CAN  BE FOUND ON THIS BLOG.--REGARDS-VIJAY

PRACTICAL WISDOM

IT IS EVEN MORE DAMAGING FOR A PERSON TO SAY FOOLISH THINGS THAN TO DO THEM.

CARDINAL DE RETZ 1613-1679