What procedural error led to the quashing of the jail sentence?

Question

Accepted Answer

A High Court quashed the jail sentence because the guilty plea was not recorded using the correct procedure

The High Court set aside the technician’s conviction and six-month jail sentence because the Sessions Court judge failed to properly record the guilty plea. Justice Datuk Ahmad Bache found there was no record showing the accused understood the charge and its consequences after he pleaded guilty. The court also noted the charge was too long for a layman to understand and that he was not represented by a lawyer on that day.
Guilty plea was not recorded with required understanding
Justice Datuk Ahmad Bache ruled that the Sessions Court did not record the guilty plea according to the correct procedure. In particular, there was no mention that Chiok Wai Loong understood the charge and the possible punishment after pleading guilty. The judge only recorded that the charge and sentence were read to him.
The charge length and lack of representation were highlighted
The High Court said the charge was too long for a layman to understand. It also pointed out that Chiok was not represented by a lawyer on that day when he pleaded guilty. These factors were used to frame why the procedure around accepting the plea was not properly followed.
The case was set aside after a review application
The High Court allowed a review application filed by Chiok Wai Loong, 35, to set aside what the Sessions Court had imposed. The Sessions Court had sentenced him on March 22 to six months in jail and a fine of RM12,000, with the jail term starting from his arrest on March 20. The High Court’s decision overturned both the conviction and the sentence.
A new charge was ordered to be filed
After overturning the Sessions Court’s decision, the High Court ordered the accused to be charged again at another Sessions Court as soon as possible. The earlier charge related to posting offensive content on Facebook linked to the sale of socks bearing the word Allah, under Section 231(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The charge carried a penalty of up to one year in jail or a fine of up to RM50,000, or both, upon conviction.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What procedural error led to the quashing of the jail sentence?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends