1.

Analyze and submit if the exceptions to the bedrock principle that all crimes are

local in nature are more useful than the general rule itself?
The process of criminal justice is governed by the following legislation, Criminal Procedure
Code, Courts of Judicature Act and Subordinate Courts Act. The principal legislation which
provides the basis/framework for the criminal process is the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
Section 3 of the CPC states that all offences under Penal Code shall be inquired into
and tried according to the provisions contained subject to any written law. In the case of
Karpal Singh & Anor v PP, it was shown that the CPC was intended to be an exhaustive
pronouncement of the criminal procedure but however, it cannot be said to be comprehensive.
Thus, where a lacuna in the law in Malaysia exists, English criminal procedure law
shall be applied so far as the same shall not conflict or be in consistent with the CPC and can
be auxillary thereto Section 5 of the CPC. It was further stated in the case of Karpal Singh &
Anor v PP that If there is a lacuna in the law, then by way of Section 5, the English criminal
procedure law shall be applied so far as the same shall not conflict or be in consistent with the
CPC and can be auxiliary.
The exception are further shown in the case of Re Kah Wai Video (Ipoh) Sdn Bhd.
This case is about copyright, police search premise and seize the things, the police prepared a
list of the seized materials. In this list there are two main type of things, the scheduled and the
unscheduled .The seize was pursuant to an information leads to a search leads to a seizure.
The police also seized other items not in the schedule (unscheduled) not in the schedule under
the warrant of search. The magistrate was doubtful if the search was correct, because of that
he made another order, this one must be returned to the owner, after the search n seizure
someone came up and say these things belong to them not infringing the copyright.
Magistrate give order to return the unscheduled items. When went to the higher court, they
said it is correct, warrant was valid in accordance to law. But when it comes to the
unscheduled items, when he made the order to return it, it was not within the law. (The law
says if items not used within 6 months, must be returned, so check on the time frame from
when the order was made, and see the time upon returning). In the case of Ghani v Jones,
applied English principle, and therefore says there is no issue whether the unscheduled one is
valid or otherwise by way of the extension of common law principles

Therefore, if there is a lacuna in the law, then by way of Section 5, the English
criminal procedure law shall be applied so far as the same shall not conflict or be in
consistent with the CPC and can be auxiliary