The prosecution's appeal with regard to a PKR leader involved in the 'Black 505' rally, which was slated to be heard by the Federal Court tomorrow, has hit a snag.
In a landmark judgment, the Court of Appeal acquitted Selangor deputy speaker Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad after Section 9 (5) Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) being declared unconstitutional, null and void.
The Attorney-General's Chambers then appealed to the Federal Court.
However, the prosecution found itself in a quandary due to another landmark decision in the case of Prosecutor vs Siow Chung Peng, which barred the apex court from hearing cases which originated from the Sessions Court.
Nik Nazmi was originally charged in the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court.
Due to this development, the AG Chambers wrote to the Federal Court yesterday applying for more time to study the matter.
Nik Nazmi's lawyer N Surendran (left) informed reporters of this postponement today.
"The postponement has been granted today by the apex court to an indefinite date," he added.
In cases which originated from the Sessions or Magistrate's Court, the final appeal would be decided by the Court of Appeal, as the country allows a two-tier appeal. There should be no further appeal to the Federal Court.
Nik Nazmi, who is also Seri Setia assemblyperson, was charged last year with not giving a 10-day notice for the rally held at the Kelana Jaya stadium after the last general election.
However, Nik Nazmi filed an application with the Shah Alam High Court to declare Section 9(5) of the PAA unconstitutional but failed.
On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the court in its unanimous landmark decision declared Section 9 (5) that punishes anyone with a RM10,000 fine for failing to give notice of an assembly as unconstitutional.
Following this, the appellate court acquitted Nik Nazmi. The landmark decision also resulted in others who participated in the assembly and other rallies to be acquitted.
However, Nik Nazmi and the others were re-charged following this but the Petaling Jaya Sessions judge ruled that it was bound by the appellate court's decision and ordered a discharge.
The Malaysian Bar president Christopher Leong had rapped the attorney-general, saying that charging someone for the same offence after being acquitted constituted double-jeopardy.
In a landmark judgment, the Court of Appeal acquitted Selangor deputy speaker Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad after Section 9 (5) Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) being declared unconstitutional, null and void.
The Attorney-General's Chambers then appealed to the Federal Court.
However, the prosecution found itself in a quandary due to another landmark decision in the case of Prosecutor vs Siow Chung Peng, which barred the apex court from hearing cases which originated from the Sessions Court.
Nik Nazmi was originally charged in the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court.Due to this development, the AG Chambers wrote to the Federal Court yesterday applying for more time to study the matter.
Nik Nazmi's lawyer N Surendran (left) informed reporters of this postponement today.
"The postponement has been granted today by the apex court to an indefinite date," he added.
In cases which originated from the Sessions or Magistrate's Court, the final appeal would be decided by the Court of Appeal, as the country allows a two-tier appeal. There should be no further appeal to the Federal Court.
Nik Nazmi, who is also Seri Setia assemblyperson, was charged last year with not giving a 10-day notice for the rally held at the Kelana Jaya stadium after the last general election.
However, Nik Nazmi filed an application with the Shah Alam High Court to declare Section 9(5) of the PAA unconstitutional but failed.
On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the court in its unanimous landmark decision declared Section 9 (5) that punishes anyone with a RM10,000 fine for failing to give notice of an assembly as unconstitutional.Following this, the appellate court acquitted Nik Nazmi. The landmark decision also resulted in others who participated in the assembly and other rallies to be acquitted.
However, Nik Nazmi and the others were re-charged following this but the Petaling Jaya Sessions judge ruled that it was bound by the appellate court's decision and ordered a discharge.
The Malaysian Bar president Christopher Leong had rapped the attorney-general, saying that charging someone for the same offence after being acquitted constituted double-jeopardy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.