Criminal Assignment 3
c) Would you, if you were the magistrate, grant the application for the joint trial of Apek and Tok.
The issue is whether the application for the joint trial of Apek and Tok can be granted.
The general rule is as stipulated in Section 163 of the CPC which requires that every charge against the accused person shall be tried separately. The purpose of this section is to prevent embarassment and unfairness to the accused as stated in the case of R v Sakandar Khan1. However, there are several exception to the general rule as enunciated in the case of Jayaraman & Ors v Public Prosecutor2 which among other allows for the holding of a joint trial of two or more persons. This include the situation when more persons than one are accused of the same offence or of different offences committed in the same transaction as spelt out in Section 170(1) of the CPC. The essence of this section is that the offences involving the different accused persons are committed in the ame transaction.
In the case of Amrita Lal Hazra V Emperor3, the court held that what constitutes the same transaction is that there should be proximity of time, unity, or proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity purpose or design. This case was applied in the Malaysian case of Public Prosecutor v Nagathevan a/l Manoharan & Ors4 where five charges against three of the accused were tried together in a joint trial as the facts were so interconnected and linked as to form a part of the same transaction.
Applying this to the case at hand, the investigating officer recovered the Longines watch from Apek’s house in Klang whilst the Seiko watch was obtained in Tok’s house which was located in Kajang. Following from the recovery of the watches, Apek and Ah Tok were charged under Section 411 of the Penal Code for dishonestly receiving stolen property, knowing that it was obtained by gang robbery. In order to constitute a joint trial as propounded in the case of Amrita and Section 170(1) of the CPC,
The issue is whether the application for the joint trial of Apek and Tok can be granted.
The general rule is as stipulated in Section 163 of the CPC which requires that every charge against the accused person shall be tried separately. The purpose of this section is to prevent embarassment and unfairness to the accused as stated in the case of R v Sakandar Khan1. However, there are several exception to the general rule as enunciated in the case of Jayaraman & Ors v Public Prosecutor2 which among other allows for the holding of a joint trial of two or more persons. This include the situation when more persons than one are accused of the same offence or of different offences committed in the same transaction as spelt out in Section 170(1) of the CPC. The essence of this section is that the offences involving the different accused persons are committed in the ame transaction.
In the case of Amrita Lal Hazra V Emperor3, the court held that what constitutes the same transaction is that there should be proximity of time, unity, or proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity purpose or design. This case was applied in the Malaysian case of Public Prosecutor v Nagathevan a/l Manoharan & Ors4 where five charges against three of the accused were tried together in a joint trial as the facts were so interconnected and linked as to form a part of the same transaction.
Applying this to the case at hand, the investigating officer recovered the Longines watch from Apek’s house in Klang whilst the Seiko watch was obtained in Tok’s house which was located in Kajang. Following from the recovery of the watches, Apek and Ah Tok were charged under Section 411 of the Penal Code for dishonestly receiving stolen property, knowing that it was obtained by gang robbery. In order to constitute a joint trial as propounded in the case of Amrita and Section 170(1) of the CPC,