The Malaysian Bar - Unfairly penalised

Home

News

Berita/Komen Undang-Undang

Unfairly penalised

Tuesday, 26 July 2011 09:20am

©The Star (Used by permission)
Articles of Law By Bhag Singh

It may sometimes be less costly to admit guilt even though one is innocent because fighting it out in court may be beyond the means of the average wage-earner.

IN THE course of attending to day-to-day matters, we are confronted with diverse difficulties. Invariably laws and rules are involved.

One instance is that of a motorist who is faced with a traffic offence problem. He had parked his car at an unmarked side of a secondary road in a certain town. There was nothing whatsoever to indicate that he could not park his car there.

After being summoned for obstructing traffic, he went to the police station to appeal. An ordinary individual who has every respect for the law would no doubt expect that in such a situation, his predicament would be carefully considered.

However, while his appeal was being considered, a line was later drawn indicating where a car could not be parked on the side of the road where he had parked his car earlier.

The motorist’s grievance is that if the road were looked at now, then he would have committed an offence. Of course, if the road were looked at when the offence was alleged to have been committed, then it would be the case that he did not commit any offence.

So the motorist waited for a reply to his predicament over what he perceived to be a summons that ought not to have been issued. However, to his horror, he received a reply two months later stating “saman yang dikeluarkan adalah wajar” (the summons issued was justified).

What does an individual do in such a situation? According to the reader, during his conversation with the traffic police personnel, he was given the standard response: “If you are not happy with the decision, you can always challenge it in the court.”

Can you?

Of course, this is easier said than done. If the facts narrated by the reader were true, that is, the lines were drawn much later, then the motorist is not in the wrong and should at the end of the day be free from any charge.

However, it involves going to the court and claiming trial to the charge by pleading not guilty on the basis that he did not commit the offence. Few people would be in a position to conduct their own defence in court.

For the ordinary individual, the cost of contesting such a charge would be high. He would have to engage the services of a lawyer, and this would cost a lot more than if he were just to plead guilty in court, even though he believes he is innocent.

In addition, he would have to take time off from work or from his business if he is not already retired. This is not to say that the time of retired people is without any value.

All this, however, is a personal cost to him. On the other hand, it costs nothing personally for the police and their witnesses to come to court. It is part of their work.

The evidence

Then there is the question of having to prove when the line was drawn. Unless the individual had taken a photograph of the road on the day he received the summons, he would need cogent evidence to prove that the line was drawn after the date of commission of the offence.

If readers are caught in such a situation, it would be prudent to immediately take steps to record the physical or other condition that exists and which would be relevant. If there are any witnesses, the testimony of such witnesses would also help.

Otherwise, it will be necessary to call the party that drew the lines to testify when the lines were drawn. If such evidence confirms what the motorist says, he will be vindicated. If the party which drew the lines insist that the lines were drawn earlier before the offence was committed, then it would depend on whom the presiding judge believes.

The chances?

Readers may well ask whom the court is likely to believe: the individual or the police personnel. Many an individual will think that the court will more likely believe the police personnel.

However, this need not be so. Much depends on the circumstances of the case and the individual’s belief in his cause.

There are individuals who are convinced that they are not in the wrong and are prepared to stand up for what they believe to be the truth even if in the end they are found guilty.

I know of one such individual who was issued a summons for not wearing a seat belt. When his earnest appeal to have the summons withdrawn was not entertained, he decided to claim trial and contest the charge.

In the events that followed, three police personnel testified. The motorist himself testified in court that he was in fact wearing the seat belt when he was stopped.

Given the circumstances and the sincerity with which he gave evidence, the court held the charge not proved. He was acquitted and discharged. The demeanour of the witnesses would no doubt have been taken into account.

In the end, though his defence was successful, the cost to him was high in more ways than one. He had to go to court some 20 times. On all these occasions, the police officers were attending court as part of their duties.

Conclusion

Such a situation no doubt constitutes an injustice to the individual involved. This is so even though in the end it may be said that justice has been done. Such a situation can be avoided if the relevant authorities give more serious attention to appeals.

Whilst the discussion here is based on the parties involved in a traffic offence situation, the same considerations apply if the problem involves any government department or for that matter, a commercial organisation.

While efficiency in government departments has been greatly enhanced, there are instances in which an individual is given the run-around. This is a waste of time and a waste of valuable resources.

Greater efficiency in government departments is of little comfort to the individual who has a bad experience.

Set as favourite

Email This