IN THIS 1/3 of a four-part collection, I will speak about cybercrime cases and other cyber offenses. Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The establishment of Cyber Courts inside the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court saw the boom of decisions regarding the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.
In Pendakwa Raya’s own Dato’ Mohd Zaid Bin Ibrahim (Kuala Lumpur Criminal Sessions Court Case No. Sixty-three-003-12/2015), the Sessions Court Judge gave a comprehensive judgment concerning a fee under the law. 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.
The accused, a former Minister of Law, is charged with publishing a declaration that’s offensive on his weblog with the motive to harass every other individual. The assertion includes a transcript of the accused’s speech given at a luncheon regarding the behavior of the then-Prime Minister Najib Razak.
The Sessions Court Judge acquitted the accused on the prosecution level primarily based on the subsequent grounds, among others:-
(1) In figuring out whether or not the object is offensive, the thing should be examined as an entire, and no longer by way of searching in a few paragraphs or words. This is because the accused was charged for uploading the item, and for this reason, the entire article is considered offensive. Therefore, the prosecutor cannot choose and choose the applicable paragraphs or words favorable to them and conclude that the article is offensive to an individual.
(2) The learned Sessions Court Judge appeared into the object of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 set out in s.Three of the said Acts. One of the Act’s goals is to create a civil society where statistics-primarily based offerings will offer the premise of continuing upgrades to great of labor and lifestyles. The learned Sessions Court Judge also considered that the said Act addressed the issue of censorship, wherein nothing in the said Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.
(3) None of the Prosecution’s witnesses said that they determined that the complete article is offensive. Two (2) of the prosecution’s witnesses referred to a part of the item and not the whole article. In truth, the complainant’s police report in opposition to the accused had best said that the article is seditious, which is different from offensive in person.
(4) Such an article should be tested and no longer taken without additional examination, without careful consideration. This is one of the objectives that s. 3 of the said Act seeks to repeal. Therefore, the attitude of receiving information blindly ought to be prevented, and the brand new way of life by the reason and goal of the stated Act should be promoted.
(5) In appreciation of the element “with a purpose” to annoy some other man or woman, the discovered Sessions Court Judge held that that cause has to be proved, and no evidence has been adduced to prove equal. As for the element “annoy every other character,” the Sessions Court Judge found that the complainant did not experience annoyance when he examined the article. They found that a Sessions Court Judge held that annoyance or anger, or dissatisfaction, could appear spontaneously while the object is examined. The learned Sessions Court Judge determined that the item is supposed for blog readers to garner aid for what it is written for, i.e., to offer support to Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir.
(6) The price is defective because the prosecution didn’t kingdom genuinely in the prices sheet who is the person supposed to be involved with the aid of the accused whilst the object was uploaded. The price sheet had best stated “with the purpose to bother every other individual.” The individual within the price sheet ought to be named sincerely.
(7) The Prosecution must have also called the character supposed to be annoyed through the article to testify whether the victim felt irritated by using the object. Without proof from the victim, the Court is left wondering whether or not the sufferer felt irritated by the article. In Sivarasa Rasiah v Pendakwa Raya (Kuala Lumpur Criminal Sessions Court Case No. 63-001-04/2016 & 63-002-04/2016, Criminal Application No:
64-1/2-07/2016) and Premesh Chandran a/l Jeyachandran v Pendakwa Raya (Kuala Lumpur Criminal Sessions Court Case: WA-64-a hundred and fifty five-12/2017), the 2 accused have been charged under s. Section 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. They applied to refer some constitutional troubles to the High Court under s. Section 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 on the ground that s. Section 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 is in contravention of Articles eight and 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution.
The Prosecution raised an initial objection to this software on the floor. Section 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 is settled and not a contravention of the Federal Constitution. However, the identical Sessions Court Judge brushed off the software on the floor that the case of Nor Hisham Osman v PP [2010] MLJU 1429 has already decided that s. Section 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 is reasonable and now longer unconstitutional. Fortunately for the two accused, the fees were withdrawn from them after the Government’s exchange after the 14th General Election.
