CONFIDENTIAL LW/APR2011/LAW546

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

FINAL EXAMINATION

COURSE ADVANCED CRIMINAL PROCEDURE I

COURSE CODE LAW546
EXAMINATION APRIL 2011
TIME 3 HOURS

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES

1. This question paper consists of two (2) questions.

2. Answer ALL questions in the Answer Booklet. Start each answer on a new page.

3. Candidates are allowed to bring into the examination hall the following (unannotated).

i) Criminal Procedure Code

ii) Penal Code

4. Do not bring any material into the examination room unless permission is given by the
invigilator.

5. Please check to make sure that this examination pack consists of:

i) the Question Paper

ii) an Answer Booklet - provided by the Faculty

DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO

This examination paper consists of 5 printed pages
© Hak Cipta Universiti Teknologi MARA CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL 2 LW/APR2011/LAW546

QUESTION 1

On 27 October 2009 Insp. Alfa arrested Oren in connection with the following report lodged
by Minah: -

On 25 October 2009 my neighbour, Oren entered my house compound when I was

gardening and embraced me in the presence of my maid, Dik. He fled when I
screamed.

On his arrest, Insp. Alfa ordered Oren to remove his shirt. He then searched Oren's person
for incriminating items and contraband connected with the offence but found nothing. Oren
was then escorted to the police station. On checking of police records, it was discovered that
Oren was on 20 September 2009 sent to prison for one month for theft. He was released
from prison on 18 October 2009.

On discovering this, Insp. Alfa decided to search Oren's house which was occupied by Oren,
his wife, Olga and his mother, Mek. He arrived at the house on 27 October 2009 at 3.00 pm.
Olga and Mek were at home. They were ordered, despite Mek's protest that she had to go
shopping, to remain in the lounge while Insp. Alfa, accompanied by Oren, searched the
house. Insp. Alfa found nothing.

He next searched Olga and found in her pocket, two pawn tickets which showed that she
had on 14 October 2009 pawned two items of jewellery for RM 300. Under questioning, Olga
claimed that the jewellery were personal items. Nevertheless, Insp. Alfa arrested her on
suspicion that it could be stolen property. He also questioned Oren, after advising him of the
provisions of section 112 CPC, with regard to the origin of the pawned items. Oren refused
to answer. It was then 4.30 pm and Mek was finally allowed to leave the house.

a) Oren has consulted you regarding the legality of: -

i) the search conducted on his person by Insp. Alfa.

(10 marks)

ii) the search of his house.

(10 marks)

iii) his refusal to give a statement under section 112 CPC

(10 marks)
Advise him.

b) Mek has instituted proceedings against Insp. Alfa for unlawful arrest. Will she
succeed?
(10 marks)

On 28 October 2009 at 9.00 am, Insp. Alfa produced Olga before Astro, a magistrate, to
detain her for eight days under section 117 CPC to: -

complete police investigations to ascertain whether two pawned items were stolen
property.

Astro ordered Olga's detention as per Insp. Alfa's application.

© Hak Cipta Universiti Teknologi MARA CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL 3 LW/APR2011/LAW546

c) Olga seeks your advice on the following matters: -

i) the propriety of the search conducted on her by Insp.Alfa

(15 marks)

ii) the legality of her arrest.

(10 marks)

iii) the validity of the remand order under section 117 CPC
(15 marks)

Advise her.

d) On 12 December 2009 Oren was charged under section 354 Penal Code for the
offence committed against Minah. At his trial, his counsel is submitting that: -

i) failure by the prosecution to tender Minah's report is fatal to the prosecution.

ii) further or alternatively, failure to tender a sanction under section 129 CPC
has rendered his trial a nullity.

You are the DPP who conducted the prosecution. Reply to the submissions raised by
Oren's counsel.
(20 marks)

QUESTION 2

On 19 June 2009 at about 2.00 pm Lawa was in her shop, Butik Mas, Shah Alam when
Kofe, whom she recognized as a former school-mate, entered her shop. He asked to see 2
gold necklaces. When handed the necklaces, he fled with Lawa in pursuit. On Lawa leaving
the shop, another man entered and removed her handbag containing RM 5,000.

On Lawa returning after an unsuccessful chase, Cantik, the owner of an adjoining shop, told
her: -

When you ran out of your shop just now, a man, whom I recognized as Tee, my
former neighbour, entered your shop and took your handbag.

A police report was lodged. Insp. Vladimir, the investigating officer (IO) on 20 June 2009 at
3.00 pm arrested Tee at his house at no: 3 Jalan Jujor, Shah Alam and recovered Lawa's
bag emptied of the contents. During the course of investigation, Tee said: -

Kofe is my accomplice. Our modus operandi is for Kofe to steal something. In the
resulting commotion, I would also take opportunity to steal something else.

On information provided by Tee, Kofe was on 22 June 2009 at 6.00 pm arrested at his house
at no: 4 Jalan Yakin, Seremban. Milo, Kofe's brother was present in the house. Kofe and
Milo were searched but the 2 necklaces were not found. Kofe also denied knowing Tee and
claimed that Tee was trying to frame him.

© Hak Cipta Universiti Teknologi MARA CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL 4 LW/APR2011/LAW546

a) Based on the evidence, draft appropriate charges for Kofe and Tee with respect to
the offences committed against Lawa.
(30 marks)

b) Should a joint trial be held for Kofe and Tee with respect to the charges that you
framed? Give reasons for your answer.

(10 marks)

Insp. Vladimir also searched the house and found: -

i) in Kofe's room, a gold Rolex watch, and

ii) in Milo's room, a gold Cartier watch.
On examination of the watches, it was established that they had been reported stolen from
Concita of Watch Centre, Plaza Kaya, Shah Alam on 10 June at 11.00 am. Insp. Vladimir
proposes to charge Kofe and Milo for offences under section 411 Penal Code but needs
clarification as to: -

i) the place and court to charge Kofe and Milo,

ii) whether the trial should be a joint trial.

c) As the DPP responsible, advise Insp. Vladimir.

(20 marks)

On 25 June 2009, Milo was charged for the offence under section 411 of the Penal Code.
Bail was refused upon prosecution objection that Milo would tamper with witnesses. Insp.
Vladimir also discovered that Milo had on 14 May 2009 caused hurt under section 324 Penal
Code at Kompleks Gaya, Ipoh to Concita of Watch Centre in a previous separate incident.
He had been released on bail of RM2.000 in the Ipoh case, pending trial on 17 July 2009
before Rasputin of the Ipoh court. Insp. Vladimir is applying for the charge under section 411
Penal Code (of the Cartier watch belonging to Concita) be joined for trial with the charge
under section 324 Penal Code (of causing hurt to Concita) and the two charges be tried at
one trial in Ipoh since the two offences involved the same victim.

Milo has raised the following issues for the court's decision: -

i) the refusal to grant him bail for the offence under section 411 Penal Code would
deprive him of his bail, already granted, for the offence under section 324 Penal
Code, which bail he is entitled to as of right. In view of this, he should be granted bail
for the offence under section 4.11 Penal Code as such failure would deprive him of
his right to bail granted for the first offence.

ii) the propriety of the prosecution application to join the two charges.

d) You are the presiding court. Deliver, giving reasons, your decision.
(30 marks)

© Hak Cipta Universiti Teknologi MARA CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL 5 LW/APR2011/LAW546

However, before the decision of the court could be delivered, Milo pleaded guilty to the
charge under section 411 Penal Code. He was given a deterrent sentence of 6 years'
imprisonment.

e) Would you advise Milo to appeal against his sentence?

(10 marks)

END OF QUESTION PAPER

© Hak Cipta Universiti Teknologi MARA CONFIDENTIAL