Take the circumstances
in the Sunny Ang case in the context of the Malaysian Penal Code and judiciary
system as it is today. Would the decision have been similar?
If we properly
scrutinize the decision of Sunny Ang, it is clear that there is one missing
element of murder i.e., death. There was no prove that the accused’s
girlfriend, Jenny Cheok died. She had merely been missing after the couple’s
scuba diving trip in the straits between Sisters’ Island. Her dead body was
never found.
The unanimous decision
to sentence the accused to death was made in the High Court, by a seven-man jury. It must be noted that juries are laymen, and if not properly guided by the counsels or court, would most likely be guided by emotions of their own. The accused went on to appeal against the decision of the High Court at the
Federal Court and the Privy Council but both applications were rejected.
The Federal Court ruled
that the incident was not a mere accident. This is true, for the circumstances,
when roped together, would clearly show the intention to cause death on the
part of the accused.
One of the contentions
for the appeal was that the trial judge erred in law in failing to direct the
jury on a possible verdict of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Learned
judge also went on to state that it was not necessary to give that direction to
the jury and that the case was one in which the appellant was either guilty of
murder or not guilty of any offence whatsoever. Question: Could attempt to murder be a more suitable charge? (See S307 Penal Code, particularly illustration b).
Illustrations (a) to
(d) of S300 of the Penal Code contains the element of death of a victim as a consequence of acts
of an accused. The opening words of S299 of the Penal Code reads “whoever causes death”. Death
appears to be a necessary element. Without the death of Jenny Cheok, all the
other evidences could only have proven intention to murder. The acts of
preparing to cause death alone should not have been sufficient to convict the
accused of murder.
In a nutshell, the
decision could have been different if the sentence was not made by a seven-man
jury. They ought to have been informed of the ingredients/elements of murder
before they decided to sentence the accused to death.
Denise, as I know, in most common law jurisdiction, a person can be declared died in absentia (or legally died) after 7 years, what is you view on this?
ReplyDeleteThank you for the question. The offence was allegedly committed on 27 August 1963 but the accused was convicted on 18 May 1965. Hence, he was actually convicted before the death of his girlfriend was proven.
ReplyDeleteif this case were to occur in the 21st century whereby the jury system has been abolished in malaysia, in your opinion, do you think the judgement would be very much different?
ReplyDeleteIt is my humble opinion that the judgment would be very different. It is evident from the case that there are no clear proof as to whether or not murder had been committed. Not only were the evidences merely circumstantial in nature, death could not be proven. Perhaps a judge with legal knowledge would have better understanding as to what constitutes murder than a layman. We have to keep in mind that what is a crime in the perception is not necessarily a crime in law. And what Sunny Ang should be convicted of is a murder in law. I hope I answered your question.
ReplyDeleteIs the decision of this case being criticized in any of the following decision of any case?
ReplyDeleteNot directly on the point that I am trying to make here, or at least none that I know of. Most cases talk about how circumstantial evidences can be roped together to convict a person. But I will let you know should I find anything new.
ReplyDeleteHowever, isn't most cases which the defendant is wrongly committed of a crime, is usually because of lack of evidence, and the circumstances of wrong place at a wrong time?
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, the case in point - even though should the jury system be abolished, the odds are against the poor fellow. Yet the key point here isn't so much as his background (which is questionable) but I believe, if he had acted out a panic scene at sea, and did not notify the insurance company - he would have had a higher chance of avoiding the death sentence.
For that I believe his stupidity, no wait, greed, took over him.
That is true julian, perhaps if he had acted in a particular manner, he could have gotten himself off scot-free. This is perhaps the beauty of circumstantial evidence. All the circumstances must be put together and considered as a whole, not each on their own. Hence yes, if any of these circumstances had been slightly different, it may greatly affect the conviction. Appreciate the comment :)
ReplyDelete