Upholding The Rights of Arrested Individuals: A Comparison Between Malaysia and the United Kingdom’s Legal Framework

Bernard Noel Beneldus, Ain Shafikah Mohd Ripin, Lim Jia Jia, Siti Nursyafiqah Hamdan, Syazliyana Izzaty Syamsul Ikram, Shazwi Sabidi, Hanifah Haydar Ali Tajuddin

Abstract


ABSTRAK

 

Pindaan seksyen 28A Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (CPC), yang berkuat kuasa pada September 2007, menguatkan hak orang yang ditangkap, iaitu hak untuk dimaklumkan tentang alasan penangkapan, hak untuk memaklumkan kepada saudara atau rakan tentang penangkapan, dan hak untuk berunding dengan pengamal undang-undang. Bagaimanapun, beberapa kritikan telah dibangkitkan berhubung penguatkuasaan pindaan ini. Oleh itu, kertas kerja ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji rangka kerja undang-undang di Malaysia yang mengelilingi hak orang yang ditangkap, dengan memfokuskan kepada Perkara 5 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Seksyen 28A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (CPC). Walaupun Perkara 5 Perlembagaan Persekutuan menjamin perlindungan terhadap penahanan yang menyalahi undang-undang, Seksyen 28A mempertingkatkan hak ini dengan membenarkan orang yang ditangkap untuk memberitahu saudara, rakan atau peguam cara. Walau bagaimanapun, bahasa yang samar-samar seperti "secepat mungkin boleh dilaksanakan" dan "masa yang munasabah" mewujudkan kekaburan tafsiran, yang berpotensi membolehkan penyalahgunaan oleh penguatkuasa undang-undang. Perbandingan dengan Akta Keterangan Polis dan Jenayah 1984 (PACE) United Kingdom menyerlahkan perlindungan yang lebih kukuh, termasuk peraturan terperinci, penyimpanan rekod mandatori dan mekanisme pengawasan bebas yang memastikan penguatkuasaan undang-undang bertanggungjawab. Oleh itu, kertas kerja ini menekankan keperluan untuk definisi berkanun yang lebih jelas, mekanisme pengawasan yang mantap, dan kesedaran dalam kalangan penguatkuasa undang-undang untuk menegakkan hak asasi di bawah Perkara 5. Terutamanya, pengukuhan perlindungan adalah penting untuk mencegah penderaan, memastikan layanan yang adil terhadap tahanan, dan mengurangkan beban mahkamah yang menangani aduan berkaitan penahanan.

 

Kata Kunci: Hak orang yang ditangkap, Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (CPC), Perkara 5 (Perlembagaan Persekutuan), Pengawasan penguatkuasaan undang-undang, Perlindungan tahanan

 

ABSTRACT

The amendment of section 28A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which came into force in September 2007, amplifies an arrested person's rights, which are the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the right to inform a relative or friend of the arrest, and the right to consult with a legal practitioner. However, certain criticisms have been raised regarding the enforcement of this amendment. Therefore, this paper aims to examine the legal framework in Malaysia surrounding the rights of arrested persons, focusing on Article 5 of the Federal Constitution and Section 28A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). While Article 5 of the Federal Constitution guarantees protection against unlawful detention, Section 28A enhances this right by allowing an arrested person to notify a relative, friend, or solicitor. However, vague language such as "as soon as may be practicable" and "reasonable time" creates interpretative ambiguity, potentially enabling misuse by law enforcement. Comparisons with the United Kingdom's Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) highlight stronger safeguards, including detailed regulations, mandatory record-keeping, and independent oversight mechanisms that hold law enforcement accountable. The paper is doctrinal research and employs qualitative methods in its conduct. Legal provisions and decided cases are scrutinized and references from published books, articles and opinions from practitioners are examined. At the end, this paper emphasises the need for clearer statutory definitions, robust oversight mechanisms, and awareness among law enforcement to uphold fundamental rights under Article 5. Notably, strengthening safeguards is vital to prevent abuses, ensure fair treatment of detainees, and reduce the burden on courts addressing detention-related complaints.

 

Keywords: Arrested person's rights, Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), Article 5 (Federal Constitution), Law enforcement oversight, Detention safeguards


Full Text:

PDF

References


STATUTORY ACTS / TREATIES

Criminal Procedure Code

Federal Constitution of Malaysia

Interpretation and General Clauses Act 1948

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012

Terrorism Act 2006

The United Kingdom’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)

CASES

Abdul Rahman v Tan Jo Koh [1968] 1 MLJ 205

Chong Fook Kam & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1970] 2 MLJ 219

Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573

Hashim Bin Saud v Yahya Bin Hashim & Anor [1977] 2 MLJ 116 (FC)

Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55

Lee Kwan Woh v Public Prosecutor [2009] 5 MLJ 301

Julius Tan Kok Pin V Pengerusi Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah Malaysia & Lain-Lain [2022] CLJU 1000

Ooi Ah Phuan v Officer in Charge, Criminal Investigations, Kedah/Perlis [1975] 2 MLJ 198 FC

PP v Mah Chuen Lim & Ors [1975] 1 MLJ 95

PP v Phee Boon Poh [2018] 3 CLJ 784

Profusion Petroleum Sdn Bhd v Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Dalam Negeri dan Kos Sara Hidup & Anor [2024] MLJU 1985

Public Prosecutor v Vasavan Sathiadew & Ors [1990] 1 MLJ 151

R v Iqbal [2011] 1 CR APP R 24

R v Grant [2005] EWCA Crim 1098

Ramli b Salleh v Inspector. Yahya Hashim [1973] 1 MLJ 54

Sakhnovskiy v Russia [2010] ECHR 21272/03

Tee Jun Wei v. Inspektor Parthiban Suntharam & Lain-Lain [2021] 8 CLJ 127

Wong Chee Wooi v Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors [2021] MLJU 1480

ARTICLES

Article 19, 24 November 2016, ‘Free Maria Chin, Abolish SOSMA!’.

Convention Against Torture Initiative. (2024). Safeguards in Police Custody. Convention Against Torture Initiatives. https://cti2024.org/police-resourcekit/5-1-safeguards-in-police-custody/

Dhanapal, S., & Sabaruddin, J. S. (2015). An Initial Exploration of Malaysians’ Perceptions of SOSMA 2012. Jurnal Undand-Undang, 42(2).

Gomez, J. (2004). Rights of Accused Persons -- Are Safeguards Being Reduced? Malayan Law Journal, 1(xx).

Hassan, N. A. M., Syed Anuar, S.N., Kebebasan Hak Asasi dalam Konteks Tahanan di Malaysia. (November 2023). Jurnal Wacana Sarjana, 7(5), 1-20.

Johnston, T. E. S. (1966). Judges' Rules and Police Interrogation in England Today. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 57(1).

Kamarudin, Abdul Rani (2007) Between the adversarial and the inquisitorial trial. Malayan Law Journal, 2. Xi-xxix.

Mail, M. (2013, December 25). Comparison of Police Powers of Arrest in Malaysia and the United Kingdom — Jevinder Singh (Loyarburok.com). Malay Mail ; Malay Mail. https://www.malaymail.com/news/what-you-think/2013/12/25/comparison-of-police-powers-of-arrest-in-malaysia-and-the-united-kingdom-je/587327

Malaysia - United States Department of State. (2025, January 3). United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/malaysia/?utm_source

Naz, S., & Shamsuddin, J. (2018). Malaysian Preventive Detention Laws: Old Preventive Detention Provisions Wrapped in New Packages. Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, 43.

Rana, M. S., Salman, N. W., & Dhanapal, S. (2021). LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF ARREST AND POST-ARREST SAFEGUARDS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AS TO THE LAWS OF BANGLADESH, INDIA, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM. IIUM LAW JOURNAL, 29(2), 363-386.

Sahil G., Yadav S., Yadav R. K. (2023). A Comparative Study on the Law of Arrest and Rights of Arrested Persons, Journal of Emerging Technology and Innovative Research, 10(5), 74-81.

Samsudin, I. S., Rajamanickam, R., & Nordin, R. (2021). CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE INFORMED TO AN ARRESTED PERSON FOR FAIR AND EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION: COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN MALAYSIA AND INDIA. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 27(2). 10.47750/cibg.2021.27.02.392

Sevin Goldstein, N. E., Condie, L. O., Kalbeitzer, R., Osman, D., & Geier, J. L. (2004). Juvenile Offenders’ Miranda Rights Comprehension and Self-Reported Likelihood of Offering False Confessions. Assessment, 10(4), 359-369.

Sukumaran, T. (2023, January 15). Justify Sosma controversies before taking 'no review' stand, pressure groups tell home minister. (ISIS) Malaysia. Retrieved January 31, 2025, from https://www.isis.org.my/2023/01/15/justify-sosma-controversies-before-taking-no-review-stand-pressure-groups-tell-home-minister/

Teo, P. (2021, October 17). Right to a Lawyer in Malaysia. The Legalholics. https://www.thelegalholics.com/post/right-to-a-lawyer-in-malaysia

United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. OHCHR; United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

Youth Justice Legal Centre. (n.d.). Arrest. Youth Justice Legal Centre. Retrieved January 31, 2025, from https://yjlc.uk/resources/legal-terms-z/arrest.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

e-ISSN : 2550-1704