HUJAHAN SEKSYEN 80 KANUN KESEKSAAN (KES AKTA KANAK-KANAK)

Dengan izin Yang Arif,

1)     Izinkan kami menambah kepada penghujahan kami sebelum ini yang bertarikh 18 April 2018.

2)     Kami turut menghujahkan bahawa berdasarkan hal keadaan yang khusus yang wujud dalam kes ini, Seksyen 80 Kanun Keseksaan terpakai. Seksyen 80 tersebut menyatakan;

“80. Accident in the doing of a lawful act

Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge, in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper care and caution.

ILLUSTRATION

A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence.”

3)     Kami menghujahkan bahawa pra-syarat di dalam pemakaian Seksyen 80 Kanun Keseksaan telah dipenuhi;

                              i.            Perayu tidak mendatangkan kecederaan secara langsung atau tidak langsung kepada mangsa,

                           ii.            Kejadian yang menimpa mangsa adalah di luar kawalan dan tidak dijangka. Sepanjang tempoh taska beroperasi, tidak pernah berlaku apa-apa kejadian yang serupa,

                            iii.            Kejadian berlaku begitu pantas di waktu rehat di mana guru kelas mangsa baru sahaja masuk ke tandas dan guru yang sepatutnya mengawasi pelajar belum sempat keluar,

                             iv.            Tidak ada kecuaian di pihak mana-mana guru yang bertugas,

                     v.            Lokasi di mana berlakunya kejadian adalah tempat yang selamat, dalam kawasan sekolah dan khusus untuk pelajar serta ibu-bapa berehat,

                            vi.            Meja yang terjatuh sehingga menghempap tangan mangsa juga adalah meja yang biasa. Tiada apa-apa aduan sebelumnya bahawa meja tersebut membahayakan sesiapa,

                          vii.            Tiada apa-apa keterangan yang menunjukkan niat Perayu hendak mencederakan mangsa. Juga tiada keterangan mengenai pengetahuan Perayu bahawa meja tersebut boleh membahayakan sesiapa,

                              viii.            Kejadian berlaku semasa sessi persekolahan yang rasmi,

                         ix.            Tidak ada apa-apa perlanggaran jenayah atau mana-mana peraturan dalam perlaksanaan tugasan oleh pihak Perayu dan pihak sekolah,

                          x.            Jadual tugasan yang terperinci dan latihan bagi guru-guru yang secukupnya telah dibuat oleh pihak sekolah bagi memastikan keselamatan pelajar.

4)     Sekiranya Seksyen 80 ini terpakai, ia adalah satu pembelaan yang penuh (complete defense). Pohon rujuk kes Mahkamah Rayuan La Ode Ardi Rasila v PP [2016] 1 MLJ 358 [TAG 1];

“[34] It is obvious that the appellant’s defence was a defence of accident or misfortune under s 80 of the Penal Code, which provides as follows:

80 Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge, in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper care and caution.

[35] It is a complete defence in the sense that if established would entitle the appellant to an outright acquittal, unlike for instance a defence of grave and sudden provocation to a murder charge which if established would only reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting of murder, but not entitling the accused to a total acquittal.

[36] The defence of accident or misfortune falls under the general exceptions in the Penal Code and as such must be read together with s 105 of the Evidence Act 1950 (‘the Evidence Act’) which reads:

105 When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of the general exceptions in the Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the court shall presume the absence of those circumstances.”

5)     Hujah- berdasarkan pembelaan OKT yang konsisten dengan naratif kes pendakwaan sendiri berkenaan pra syarat pemakaian Seksyen 80 seperti digariskan di atas; Perayu telah berjaya menunjukkan kewujudan pembelaan accident atau misfortune ini atas imbangan kebarangkalian.

6)     Pohon juga merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Rayuan Abdul Aziz bin Miew Yiong v PP [2015] 3 MLJ 556 [TAG 2];

“[16] It is necessary to emphasise that the defence put up by the appellant was a defence of accident or misfortune. This is a statutory defence under s 80 of the Penal Code which falls under Chapter IV under the heading 'GENERAL EXCEPTIONS'. As such, the appellant had a legal burden to prove on the balance of probabilities that his act was accidental. It was not enough for him to merely cast a reasonable doubt as to whether his act was accidental or otherwise. This legal burden (as opposed to evidential burden) is imposed by s 105 of the Evidence Act 1950 ('the Evidence Act') which provides as follows:

When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exceptions in the Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the court shall presume the absence of those circumstances.

[17] A defence under s 80 of the Penal Code is a complete defence. The provision is couched in the following terms:

Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge, in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper care and caution.

[18] Whether an act amounts to an accident or misfortune is a question of fact. To earn an acquittal an accused person must fulfill all the requirements of the section and the quantum of proof to discharge the burden is proof on the balance of probabilities. In the context of the present appeal, the appellant must prove the following:

(a) he did not intend to cause the death of the two deceased;

(b) in firing the shots he was doing a lawful act in a lawful manner and by lawful means; and

(c) he had exercised proper care and caution before firing at the two deceased.”

7)     Selanjutnya, di dalam kes ini pendakwaan telah memilih limb “mengabaikan” dan “menyebabkan kecederaan”. Sebelum ini, kami telah berhujah tiada pengabaian ataupun tindakan Perayu yang menyebabkan kecederaan kepada mangsa.

8)     Kami juga berhujah tidak ada apa-apa kecuaian di pihak Perayu yang mana boleh diletakkan apa-apa criminal liability ke atas beliau. Pohon rujuk Seksyen 31 Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001;

 

31. Ill-treatment, neglect, abandonment or exposure of children

(1) Any person who, being a person having the care of a child—

(a) abuses, neglects, abandons or exposes the child or acts negligently in a manner likely to cause him physical or emotional injury or causes or permits him to be so abused, neglected, abandoned or exposed; or

(b) sexually abuses the child or causes or permits him to be so abused,

9)     Pohon merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Adnan bin Khamis v PP [1972] 1 MLJ 274 [TAG 3] yang menerangkan mengenai ujian ke atas tertuduh yang dituduh dengan rash or negligent conduct;

“Held:

(1) the test to be applied for determining the guilt or innocence of an accused person charged with rash or negligent conduct is to consider whether or not a reasonable man in the same circumstances would have been aware of the likelihood of damages of injury to others resulting from such conduct and taken adequate and proper precautions to avoid causing such damage or injury;

(2) the judgment delivered in Cheow Keok v Public Prosecutor [1940] MLJ 103 must be regarded as per incuriam and must therefore be overruled. Accordingly, the answer to the first question must be in the negative, which implicitly provides the answer to the second question. In the result, the order of the High Court directing that the case be remitted back to the sessions court for the defence to be called, would be affirmed. Cheow Keok v Public Prosecutor [1940] MLJ 103 overruled.

Per curiam: "In the first place, mere carelessness or inadvertence, without more, is not enough, in our opinion, to establish guilt. An essential ingredient of all offences under the Penal Code is mens rea; although, in the context of culpable rashness or negligence, mens rea should not be understood as synonymous with 'criminal intention' or 'wicked mind'. Rather, it should be construed as connoting fault or blameworthiness of conduct. In the second place, the fault or blameworthiness must, as in all criminal cases, be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt – not, as in civil cases, on balance of probabilities."

10)Hujah- berdasarkan panduan kes di atas, tidak ada tindakan (conduct) atau peninggalan (omission) di pihak Perayu di mana “a reasonable man in the same circumstances would have been aware of the likelihood of damages of injury to others resulting from such conduct”. Keadaan meja yang biasa tanpa aduan serta lokasi yang selamat mengukuhkan hujahan ini.

11)Begitu juga usaha yang mencukupi di pihak Perayu dan pihak sekolah untuk memastikan keselamatan pelajar. Oleh itu dihujahkan Perayu telah berjaya memenuhi syarat ”taken adequate and proper precautions to avoid causing such damage or injury”.

12) Sebagai penutupnya, kami menghujahkan apa yang berlaku adalah satu kemalangan yang tidak dijangka mahupun dirancang. Oleh itu adalah tidak wajar Perayu diletakkan “criminal liability” ke atas beliau dalam hal keadaan yang sebegini.

13) Dengan rendah diri pohon rayuan kami dibenarkan dan sabitan serta hukuman ke atas Perayu diketepikan.

14) Sekian, terima kasih.