Trafficking In Dangerous Drugs and Murder Cases, Which One Is Easier to Defend?

Trafficking In Dangerous Drugs and Murder Cases, Which One Is Easier to Defend? To a defence lawyer nothing is easy when defending clients accused for trafficking in dangerous drugs and for murder cases. The simple reason is that the life of a prisoner is in the hands of the lawyer and the only sentence available in law is death by hanging. There is no alternative to plead to save the prisoner’s life however skillful is the defence lawyer. To a layman, the question always been asked is that, “Why defend a drugs trafficker? “Why defend a murderer?” The prejudice was always great and unjustified, but, to a lawyer a job has to be done to ensure that the prisoner has a fair trial and that if convicted, it must be based on credible evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecutor and that it was not a fixed up case. Witness Telling Lies! Prosecution Fixed Up Case? How can a lawyer be able to know that evidence has been fixed up against the prisoner or the witness was telling a lie? Very impossible! A lawyer may suspect lies been told and evidence been fixed up, but could not prove them. What the law requires in such circumstances is proof and nothing, but, suspicions […] read more

Constitutionality of Death Penalty

The issue on the constitutionality of death penalty had previously been argued before the Privy Council in the case of Ong Kee Chuan v. Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64 PC. In actual fact this was a case of appeal from Singapore under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 to the Privy Council. However, the Privy Council in their judgment ruled that the death penalty was constitutional. Now, cases are no more heard before the Privy Council in the United Kingdom and therefore the highest court where litigants could be heard now in all legal matters are before the Federal Court only. By Voon Lee Shan in the Federal Court In the Federal Court sitting at Kuching on 1st October, 2012 the issue on the constitutionality of the death penalty was again raised before five judges in the Federal Court Criminal Appeal Case No: 05-234-09/2011(Q) in Chung Ngee Hong v. Public Prosecutor in a dangerous drugs case under section 39B(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 which carries the mandatory sentence of death upon conviction. Death Penalty Arbitrary, Unfair or Unjust It was argued before the Federal Court that the death penalty under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is arbitrary, unfair […] read more

What You Must Know About Police Report!

How Important Is A Police Report? Lodging police report is a simple thing, but, not that simple! Many times people complained that police did not act on reports lodged by them. The blame was on the police, not themselves. This is not correct. Of course, there are times police did failed or neglected to act on a report for various reasons. There are certain conditions a police report needs to comply with if you want a police report to be acted upon by the police. The police report must be lodged at a police station, in actual fact, at any police station and it is an offence for any police officer to obstruct a person from lodging a police report. The police could not just simply refuse to take your report. In law, the police report has to be lodged to the police officer in charge of the police station concerned, but, in practice, there are always police officers, usually a corporal to record the police report. If given orally, it must be reduced in writing in a book called, Report Book, and this book is kept by the officer in charge of the station. Sometimes, police officers who are […] read more

Confronting Experts In Court

Confronting experts in court could be a very challenging task. Inexperienced lawyers always found it very difficult to break the evidence of expert witnesses. Evidence sought from expert witnesses during trial normally involved forensic or scientific evidence.  Many young and inexperienced lawyers may just let lose the expert to give evidence without even be bothered to cross-examine the expert or without testing the expert’s knowledge of his expertise. Judges may often be caught too and may also tend to believe the testimonies of experts. Evidence by expert witnesses were normally taken prima facie credible and accused persons could be convicted on evidence of experts unless evidence of experts could be rebutted or be contradicted during cross-examinations or trial. This is because most lawyers are not trained in the areas the experts whose expertise was sought in court. How A Good Lawyer Can Shake Up Expert’s Evidence In a trial, a good trial lawyer who knows his trade well could at times be able to shake the evidence of the expert during cross-examination with a few tricks to destroy the confidence of the expert when the expert gives his expert testimony. One of the tricks a good trial lawyer could be […] read more

“I am divorcing my husband. Can I get his share of matrimonial property?”

“I am divorcing my husband. Can I get his share of matrimonial property?” Fighting For Matrimonial Home In Husband’s Name During Divorce Proceedings In divorce proceedings, competent and experienced lawyers are able to assist women to fight for a share of matrimonial assets acquired during marriage. Even if the property has been registered in the name of the husband, this does not mean that a divorced wife could not have a share in the said property. The court has power to order division of matrimonial assets under section 76(3) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 in respect of assets acquired during the marriage by the sole effort of one party or proceeds from the sale of such assets. Further, section 76(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, inter alia, gives power of the court to order division of any assets acquired during the marriage by their joint effort, or the proceeds from the sale of such assets. So women, it is not the end of the road for you to have a share of the properties acquired during the marriage even though they could be registered in the name of your husband alone. What Is Taken Into Consideration? For division of property, the court is empowered under […] read more

Defamation, What you need to know

Malice in Defamation, What Do You Know About Malice? To what most people could understand, malice is a nasty feeling of wanting to hurt another person. In legal application, the term malice is very comprehensive and applies to any legal act that is committed intentionally without any just cause or excuse. There is no need to show personal hatred or ill feelings, but, the most important element is the state of mind, that is, reckless disregard of the law in general and of the legal rights of others. For example, a person can be liable for malice by slandering another who is a non-drinker an alcoholic in front of his or her friends or colleagues. By labeling that person as an alcoholic, the person’s feeling can be hurt, whether or not you indeed are aware would harm him. Your simple act of recklessness can cause you into trouble! There is no need for any definite intent to do harm! This is contrary to nasty feeling of wanting to hurt someone! So, when with friends, especially with strangers in the presence of others, one needs to be careful in one’s speech. When the person’s feelings are hurt, he can accuse you […] read more