What legal basis allows prosecution after previous acquittals?

Question

Accepted Answer

Prosecution Allowed Despite Previous Acquittals Based on Interpretation of "Trial"

PKR politician Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad is facing prosecution for a third time for failing to provide the required notice for the "Black 505" rallies. His preliminary objection to this latest charge was dismissed, and the case has been transferred to the High Court. This decision hinges on the prosecution's argument and the court's agreement that Nik Nazmi had not undergone a formal "trial" in his previous legal proceedings, despite earlier acquittals or discharges not amounting to an acquittal.
Legal Interpretation of "Trial" Underpins Third Prosecution

The current prosecution is proceeding under the argument that Nik Nazmi has not technically been "tried" for the offence, as stipulated in Section 7(2) of the Federal Constitution. This constitutional provision generally prevents an individual from being tried again for the same offence after they have already been acquitted or convicted. The prosecution successfully contended that the previous legal outcomes for Nik Nazmi did not constitute a full "trial," a position that the Sessions Court judge accepted.
Peaceful Assembly Act Provisions and Procedural History

The charge against Nik Nazmi stems from Section 9(1) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012, which mandates a 10-day notice period for public assemblies. Non-compliance with this provision is punishable under Section 9(5) of the PAA, which outlines penalties, typically a fine. This marks the third instance Nik Nazmi has been charged under these sections for the same conduct related to the "Black 505" rallies. He was acquitted by the Court of Appeal on the first occasion and received a discharge not amounting to an acquittal in the second attempt to prosecute.
Precedent and Conflicting Rulings

A significant development in Nik Nazmi's legal history was the Court of Appeal's decision in April 2014, which declared it unconstitutional to criminalise spontaneous assemblies for failing to give ten-day notice and ordered Section 9(5) of the PAA to be struck out. However, a subsequent ruling saw PKR member R. Yuneswaran convicted under the same charge, seemingly creating a contradiction with the precedent established in Nik Nazmi's case. This subsequent conviction appears to have influenced the prosecution's ability to pursue the current charge against Nik Nazmi.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What legal basis allows prosecution after previous acquittals?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends