A law expert contended that the recent amendment to the Evidence Act 1950 does not violate the legal principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty as it still gives leeway for the defence of the accused.
"There is no violation of the presumption of innocence... there is still room and space for the accused to defend him or herself," said Universiti Islam Antarabangsa law lecturer Shamrohayu A Aziz *at a forum discussing the controversial amendment in Kuala Lumpur today.
She argued that the presumption in Section 114A that a person who owns or controls the webpage, device or connection used to transmit seditious materials as automatically accountable and presumed to be its publisher is just an assumption of fact and can be countered by other evidence that can disprove the offence by balance of probabilities.
"There is no violation of the presumption of innocence... there is still room and space for the accused to defend him or herself," said Universiti Islam Antarabangsa law lecturer Shamrohayu A Aziz *at a forum discussing the controversial amendment in Kuala Lumpur today.She argued that the presumption in Section 114A that a person who owns or controls the webpage, device or connection used to transmit seditious materials as automatically accountable and presumed to be its publisher is just an assumption of fact and can be countered by other evidence that can disprove the offence by balance of probabilities.
Furthermore, she said that in any criminal trial under the Sedition Act or the Communications and Multimedia Act where a person is dragged before the court using 114A, the prosecution will still have to prove the primary offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
She believed that such “legislative interference” with individual rights was necessary to protect the rights of society as a whole and balance it against national security, interest and harmony, and is okay as long as the leeway for defence she mentioned above are given.
Some cases, she posited, are either so serious and presents too much of a challenge in evidence gathering that it would require such presumptions of fact to be used.
Shamrohayu said that such stern meassures are necessary as it is “the price we have to pay for online advancement”, with the laws being the only safeguard against rampant slander on the Internet, barring allowing vigilante justice where victims can hunt down and beat up their slanderers.
“It will teach society to be more responsible, mindful and considerate.
“Use a bigger lock for your website. Be wary of security matters,” reasoned the lecturer.
‘A weapon to make prosecution easier’
Meanwhile, former deputy public prosecutor Salehuddin Saidin, who also spoke at the forum defended the amendment as “a weapon” for the prosecution when faced with the daunting task of fingering elusive online slander or sedition suspects.
“The burden of proof was on the prosecution and it is difficult to prove. That was why 114A was formulated.
“It makes it easier for the prosecution to drag those suspected of slander to be prosecuted in court.
“The burden is now on the defence, to disprove it,” he said.
Salehuddin (left in photo, with Shamrohayu), however, clarified that 114A only concerns what evidence can be brought before a trial, in this case the ownership of the means by which slander or sedition was allegedly transmitted.
The actual charge for such offences, he said, is under other laws.
He explained that 114A is not an offence law and does not provide for any punishments to those called up under it, except as has been prescribed in Acts used to charge them.
‘AG may have been misquoted’
The prominent lawyer also disputed the English daily New Straits Times’ report quoting the attorney-general explaining the matter on its front page yesterday as being not quite correct.
“I don’t know, maybe the report misquoted him, as what he appeared to describe was the Act, how it was before the amendment.
“As of now, the burden of proof is no longer on the prosecution,” clarified Salehuddin.
The forum, organised by the Information Communication and Culture Ministry, sought to address the public outcry by the opposition and netizens against the recently passed amendment, with many contending that it is a breach of the legal basis that one is innocent until proven guilty and is a move to indirectly control the internet and restrict freedom of expression online.
The government, however, maintained that it is a necessary tool for it to go after often elusive perpetrators behind the recent trend of sedition and slander online.
She believed that such “legislative interference” with individual rights was necessary to protect the rights of society as a whole and balance it against national security, interest and harmony, and is okay as long as the leeway for defence she mentioned above are given.
Some cases, she posited, are either so serious and presents too much of a challenge in evidence gathering that it would require such presumptions of fact to be used.
Shamrohayu said that such stern meassures are necessary as it is “the price we have to pay for online advancement”, with the laws being the only safeguard against rampant slander on the Internet, barring allowing vigilante justice where victims can hunt down and beat up their slanderers.
“It will teach society to be more responsible, mindful and considerate.
“Use a bigger lock for your website. Be wary of security matters,” reasoned the lecturer.
‘A weapon to make prosecution easier’
Meanwhile, former deputy public prosecutor Salehuddin Saidin, who also spoke at the forum defended the amendment as “a weapon” for the prosecution when faced with the daunting task of fingering elusive online slander or sedition suspects.
“The burden of proof was on the prosecution and it is difficult to prove. That was why 114A was formulated.
“It makes it easier for the prosecution to drag those suspected of slander to be prosecuted in court.
“The burden is now on the defence, to disprove it,” he said.
Salehuddin (left in photo, with Shamrohayu), however, clarified that 114A only concerns what evidence can be brought before a trial, in this case the ownership of the means by which slander or sedition was allegedly transmitted.The actual charge for such offences, he said, is under other laws.
He explained that 114A is not an offence law and does not provide for any punishments to those called up under it, except as has been prescribed in Acts used to charge them.
‘AG may have been misquoted’
The prominent lawyer also disputed the English daily New Straits Times’ report quoting the attorney-general explaining the matter on its front page yesterday as being not quite correct.
“I don’t know, maybe the report misquoted him, as what he appeared to describe was the Act, how it was before the amendment.
“As of now, the burden of proof is no longer on the prosecution,” clarified Salehuddin.
The forum, organised by the Information Communication and Culture Ministry, sought to address the public outcry by the opposition and netizens against the recently passed amendment, with many contending that it is a breach of the legal basis that one is innocent until proven guilty and is a move to indirectly control the internet and restrict freedom of expression online.
The government, however, maintained that it is a necessary tool for it to go after often elusive perpetrators behind the recent trend of sedition and slander online.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.