cerita penjenayah di jalan sentul

Tadi lepas kuar bank kat sentul raya (nearby my office) ader kete ikut... memula tak perasan, but when we stopped kat red traffic light, one indian fella knock on the window asking us to lowered the window. I refused, tapi at the end bukak skit je, dia kate nak tarik kete sbb tak bayar (OTAK DIA LA KAN!! ABIS AKU BAYAR APER TETIAP BULAN....??) he wasn't carrying any sort of documents with him nor did he mention the amount or he’s from which bank. My dad scolded at him, told him that what his saying is nonsense. There’s other things my dad said, yang buat muka dia berubah and pucat and terus blah masuk kete dia balik, which were at that time blkg kete kami. Dalam kete tuh ader 3 org termasuk the fella yang kuar tadi. KERETA CAMRY WHB 6346 Gold – champagne colour.

Then kami terus went to sentul police station and make a report. THE END…!!!!

Kesimpulan, berhati hati ye wahai kawan2 ku…. Don’t simply believe everything other people said just because they claim they were given authority to do so… Be Very Very careful and if you’re not sure double check with the proper authority. In this case, I’ve call the bank at the moment itself and the bank confirmed there no any warning letter or notice issued….

Till Next Time…. Muahhhh!!!

Questions of the day..!!

Mom:
1) Have both of you decided on a date yet?
2) Have you make booking of the venue yet?
3) When are you going to attend your kursus?

My Answer: "Seriously Mom???? Do I really need to deal with this now when my exam is just around the corner???"

Dad: " Why not you (mom) decide on the date and go and book the venue and while you at it, attend the kursus for her...."

My Sister: "owh!! owh!! and we can marry both of you again.... on your anniversary perhaps???? hehehhee"

Can't say who is being sarcastic to who....... but God..!! Exams and work is stressful enough, but planning a wedding is more stressful !!! uwwwaaaa!!!!

p/s: Dee is being extra cranky today.... ~~wink wink~~

United States v. Holmes

Eight  crewmen  and  thirty-three  passengers  were  cast  adrift  on the  high  seas  following  the  wreck  of the  William Brown (ship). Eighteen  passengers  in  the  lifeboat,  almost  all  of whom  were  male, were  forced  by  members  of the  crew"  to jump  into  the  icy  waters  to  certain  death.  The  purpose  of  the  crew  was  to  make enough  room  in the little  boat so  that  efforts  could  be made  to navigate  her  properly  and  to  bail  water.

A  passing  ship  eventually  picked  up  the  remaining  survivors.  Once  back  in the  United  States, Alexander  Holmes,  one  of the  crewmen,  was  charged  with  manslaughter  after  the  grand jury  refused  to  return  an  indictment  for  murder. Holmes  was particularly  unlucky  - although  at  least  five  of  the  crewmen had  participated  in  the  jettisoning  of  the  passengers, only Holmes  ever  stood  trial  for  the  deaths. Holmes  was  convicted  of  the  charge  of  manslaughter,  and was  also  fined  twenty  dollars.

Although  accounts  of  the  case have  always  cited  the  decision  for  the  proposition  that  no  one has  the  right to  take  the life  of another  human  being  who  poses no  threat, the  presiding judge  in  the  case said that under  the instruction, the jury was  told that it  could  find  Holmes  innocent  if it  found  that casting  away passengers  was  necessary  in  order  to  preserve  the  sailors  who worked  the  boat. This charge  potentially  permitted  a  defense  of  necessity  to  succeed  if it  could  be shown  that the  choice  of  who  was  to  die  was  done  in  a  rational manner. Because  the  jury  found  Holmes  guilty  on  a  general verdict it is impossible  to  say  whether  they  rejected  the idea  of rational  selection  entirely,  or merely  found  there was  no need  in the  particular  circumstances  to  save  the  sailors  in  preference  to the  passengers.


~~ In Dedication To Rahmawati Budjaza Ahmad~~

~~Till Next Time~~ Peace n Love~~ ;)

Sect 81 and 84 of the Penal Code

Section 81 -  Necessity

Elements:
1) With the knowledge the offence is likely to cause harm
2) It is done without any criminal intention to cause harm
3) It is done in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property
4) There was a situation of necessity in that there was a threatened harm to person or property
5) It was so Imminent (about to happen any second) as to justify the accused's action

William Glanville in his book Criminal Law (2nd edition 1982) stated that " Law has too be broken to achieve a greater good "

Under this section, it is permissible to cause harm in order to avoid other greater harm as long as the elements above are satisfied.

" One is permitted to commit a lesser evil in order to prevent a greater evil.."

Case: PP V Ali Bin Umar, muhammad sarwar v state pcd, R v Dudley and stephens, United States v Holmes

Section 84 - Unsoundness of mind

Elements:

1) The accused must suffer unsoundness of mind at the time committing the offence.
2) By reason of Unsoundness of Mind - Sect. 84 provides a wider definition of unsoundness of mind compared to McNaghten's, but the test of right or wrong is used by the court in malaysia.
3) Incapable of knowing the nature of the act
4) even if the accused is capable of knowing the nature of the act, he might still be protected under this section if he is incapable of knowing what he was doing is either wrong or contrary to  law.

Case: PP v Muhammad Suhaimi Abdul Aziz, Jusoh v PP

Type of unsoundness of mind covered by section 84:-
1) delusion - mistaken belief
2) hallucination
3) Dementia - Lost of brain function which affect memory, thinking, language and behaviour
4) psychotic - fake believe of what is what, seeing or hearing things..... etc
5) Insane automatism cause by internal factors
6) mental deficiency - idiocy, imbecility and feeble-mindedness

.........................................................................................

Till Next Time.. da~~~~

Punishment under Subsidiary Legislation & Hugging and Kissing Case :p

Hi guys,

Some of my classmates ask me "what are the max penalty / punishment that can be imposed by the subsidiary legislation?" this is the answer:-

Section 27 of the Interpretation act 1948 and 1967, confers a general power to the delegated subsidiary to impose penalty by fine not exceeding RM 1,000 and Imprisonment not more than 6 months. This is howver subject to the power delegated by the parent statute. The Parent statute may confer powers on the delegated subsidiary to imposed higher punishment"

Given example would be section 132(2) of the Commodities Trading Act 1985, which gives power to the delegated subsidiary to imposed fine not exceeding RM 5,000 or imprisonment up to 12 months, or both for breach of specified provisions in the regulation.

Secondly for the case of couple holding hand, kissing and hugging at the KLCC garden, I finally remembered the  name of the case. It was Ooi Kean Thong & Siow Ai Wei v DPP 2006 [FC]. They were convicted under  section 8(1) of Park (Federal Territory) 1981. The issue was whether section 8(1) of Park (Federal Territory) 1981 (delegated subsidiary) is ultra vires section 102 of the Local Government Act 1976 (parent statute) and the effect is that the Applicants have been deprived of their constitutional right of freedom and whether the charge against them is contrary to Article 5(1) of the Constitution.). The charge was challenged on the ground of substantive ultra vires and unconstitutionality.

Section 102 of the parent act gives power to the S/L in the scope of - “as are necessary or desirable for the maintenance of the health, safety and well-being of the inhabitants or for the good order and government of the local authority area”. The S/L acting under this section imposed a provision for offend for any act in the scope of “behaving in a disorderly manner”. The court held that kissing and hugging is within the meaning of “behaving in a disorderly manner” and the S/L had not acted outside the power confers to them. The by-law under the S/L is within the scope of section 102 and therefore cannot be held ultra vires the parent act. 

For the second issue whether, the by-law is unconstitutional in regards of sect 5 and 8, FC? The by-law is only applicable within the compound of the klcc park. As the keeper of the park, DBKL can guard they territory with such by-law. If a person doesn’t want to be bound to such regulation, it is his choice to not enter the park. The court held that, there was no infringement of personal liberties and therefore the by-law cannot be said to be unconstitutional. 

~~~Till Next Time...~~ Da~~~

KAWAN ~~ FRIEND

I'm willing to give anyone a second chance.. but at the same time hoping the same incident wont happen again... like I said before.. act like a FRIEND and you will have a FRIEND.... My status is different now, not single anymore, ada hati yg perlu dijaga, so please do be careful when you make a statement (written or oral) cause dunt want people to misunderstood or anyone (from ur end or my end) to get hurt.

And to those who have been giving me advice and reminding me things that I've forgotten, thank you so much. you guys are the best!!! you guys had been judging the whole situation from the very beginning. and you guys know me well to not believe things that is untrue about me without me having to justify it to all.....  and Insyallah, I percaya kali ni, niat tuk cume berkawan akan diterima dgn niat yg sama.

Love ya'll!! muahhhh!!

~~ANSWER TO A REQUEST..~~

This is What Happen When Dee Finally got her Guitar.... Supposed to study Admin Law for test but instead I decided to answer a request of a very dear friend of mine.... This is for you Kak Watie and Mr. Juk.. nothing much tho.... Kak Watie, I still haven got the chord for your other requested song - Jawapanmu by Misha Omar... If anyone got the chord of that song, pls do share ya...!!!

Ist Attempt... so gimme a break k??? muahhhhh!!! love ya'll

~~Till Next Time~~ Da~~