EXERCISE FROM LECTURE

case 1

When driving his car home in Georgetown, Ryan called and talked with his wife through his mobile phone without the use of hands-free device. While talking, he lost control over his car and eventually hit a walking pedestrian.

1.Is Ryan liable under civil or criminal law?
2.What should the pedestrian do to recover his injuries/loss?

3.Should this case go to court, what will be Ryan’s right?

1.I think Ryan liable under civil law because Ryan called and talked with his wife through his mobile phone without the useof hands-free device and lost his control over his car and hit a pedestrian.

2. the pedestrian should lodge a police report and refer to court that he's not guilty to this case.

he should prove his injuries by hospital that handling this case.

3.Ryan right is to defence him self not caused that accident purposely. Ryan should pay a compound or compensation because his faulty. he should hire a lawyer and plead not guilty.

case 2

Geena runs an unregistered online investment portal from her home in KL where she managed to get people deposit money to her account.

It was discovered that the investment was a scam and she attempted to flee with the money, only to be arrested in the airport by immigration officers because she held a fake passport.

1. Determine Geena's liability: civil or criminal?

2. What law(s) and statutes you think Geena has violated?

answer

1.Geena is liable for civil law and criminal law. Civil law is the body of laws established by a state or nation for its own regulation.it liable under law of criminal because it is involving the public people .The disputes created were among her and the victims of the unregistered online investment portal.moreover by holding a fake passport and committing computer crimes, Geena has offended the criminal law.

2. civil law-Geena has violated the Consumer Protection Act 1999 under Section 16 (a). Under this section, it stated that "no person shall demand for or accept, any payment or other consideration for goods or services, if at the time of the demand or acceptance that person does not intend to supply the goods or services."

criminal law-Geena is liable under Passports Act 1966, which stated"any person who forges, alters or tampers with his passport or internal travel document, or any visa or endorsement thereon, or without lawful authority uses or attempts to use, or has in his possession, any passport or internal travel document which has been so forged, altered or tampered with shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding RM $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both

Federal Court: We have no power to review own ruling 2010/02/25

By V. Anbalagan

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court yesterday ruled that it has no jurisdiction to review its own ruling, adding that there will be no end to the litigation process if the reopening of cases is allowed.With that, the apex court unanimously dismissed an application by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to review its ruling last month which denied him access to key documents in preparation of his ongoing sodomy trial.

The decision by a three-man panel comprising Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Datuk Wira Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusof and Datuk Heliliah Mohd Yusof, was seen as departing from at least 10 other Federal Court rulings since 2000.

All these cases had consistently held that Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995 gave the apex court the jurisdiction to review its own ruling to prevent injustice or abuse of the court process.

Some of the previous decisions were made by panels chaired by chief justices who held that a review was possible in exceptional circumstances.

The latest decision on a review application was by Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi in a criminal case on Feb 11.

Zulkefli in his oral decision, said Rule 137 did not confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to review its own decision. He said the issues raised by Anwar was duly considered and dealt with in the judgment of the Federal Court on Jan 29.

"Even if this panel were to disagree with the findings of the earlier bench, it would not constitute grounds that warranted a review. There must be finality."

Earlier, senior deputy public prosecutor Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden said the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land, did not expressly confer the Federal Court the jurisdiction to review its own case.

"The constitution only provided for the apex court to hear appeals, referrals and to provide advice on constitutional matters," he said.

Yusof said Rule 137 was only made by a Rules Committee but this power was only derived from the Court of Judicature Act 1964

Karpal Singh, who appeared for Anwar, said the Federal Court had unfairly held that his client was not entitled to the documents.

"There is injustice because the prosecution is conducting trial by ambush by withholding documents, including the witness list," he said.

He said a review was necessary because the Federal Court had misinterpreted the law on the discretionary power of a trial judge to compel the prosecution to hand over documents to the defence.

On Jan 29, a three-man bench ruled that Anwar could apply for key documents only when his trial was in progress, adding that he was only entitled to material pertaining to the charge itself.

Anwar, 62, is alleged to have sodomised his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 25, at a condominium in Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur, between 3pm and 4pm on June 26, 2008.

Among the documents sought are the chemist's notes on DNA samples taken from Anwar and Saiful, the medical report from Pusrawi Hospital which Saiful visited and closed-circuit television footage from the condominium in Bukit Damansara where the alleged crime was to have taken place.

The prosecution had given some documents to Anwar, which his defence team claimed were insignificant.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/articles/11anwar/Article