Group Member : Calvin Chin Wei Long 0326086

Chiam Jia Ern 0318524

Hii Pai Ling 0320598

Jenny Hoo Yee Tyng 0321841

Liew Chia Niu 0313338

‘Men are ruled by law and not by men’

Is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, and not arbitrary decisions by individual government officials

Can be direct translated to rule according to law

Requires the government to exercise its powers in accordance with established and clearly written rules, regulations and legal principles.

Shall be define as the balance of governmental power with the protection of human rights

‘Thin’ Conception ‘Thick’ Conception

By Albert Venn Dicey1. Supremacy of law2. Equality before the law3. Predominance of legal spirit

By Lord Bingham of Cornhill1. The law must be accessible,

intelligible, clear and predictable.

The application of the Rule of Law under the

Federal Constitution

Constitution is a rule of law, however not all

constitution follows the theory of rule of law.

Supreme Law of Federation

The Federal Constitution establishes itself as the

supreme law of the Federation.

Lord Bingham stated law must be intelligible,

clear and predictable.

Slavery and forced labour prohibited

No person shall be held and forced in slavery

.

Based on the Dicey’ rule second law, there

has the equality before law for every class of

citizens.

• Everyone has the right to choose own religion and practice it .

• Based on the Dicey’ rule third law, the results of judicial decisions are better protectors of the rights of private persons.

CASE

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V MOHAMED ISMAIL

(18 April 1983)

In this case, Mr Mohamed Ismail was been charged for an offence of

trafficking in a dangerous drug which is contravention in the Dangerous

Drug Acts 1952. Before amendment, he was be provided for imprisonment

for life or mandatory death sentence.

On the day when the accuse was found guilty, the word of “Imprisonment

for life” were removed from the Act, thus providing only for the mandatory

death sentence.

Therefore, he appealed and the issues was taken to the court.

Lastly, the appealed was approved.

This decision can be said with the provision of Article 7(1) of federal

constitution:

No one shall be punished for an act or omission which was not

punished by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer

greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it

was committed.

Simple Explanation

Ah Thian v Government of

Malaysia

Applicant had been charged with committing armed

gang robbery.

Under section 392 and section 397 of the Penal Code.

An offence punishable under section 5 of

the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act, 1971 as

amended.

Penal Code(i) Section 392: Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to 30 years,and shall also

be punished with whipping with not less than 12 strokes.

(ii) Section 397: If, at the time of committing gang-robbery, the offender

uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, the

imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not beless than 7 years and with whipping with not less than 12 strokes.

Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act, 1971(i) Section 5: Any person who at the time of his committing or abetting the

commission of a scheduled offence has on his person a firearm shall be

punished with imprisonment for life and with whipping with not less than

6 strokes.

It was argued that the Firearms (Increased Penalties) (Amendment) Act, 1974 was ultra vires the Federal Constitution.

Contravened Article 8(1) of the Constitution

Article 8(1): All the person are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

Therefore void.

On March 30, 1976, at the close of the case

for the prosecution, counsel for the applicant

applied for an adjournment to enable him to

obtain the leave of a judge of the Federal

Court to start proceedings for a declaration

that the Act is void.

The application was granted.

CasesChai Choon Hon v Ketua Polis Daerah,

Kampar and Government of Malaysia

In this case, Chai Choon Hon applied on August 3rd 1984

for a license to hold a DAP solidarity dinner and lion

dance in public space.

His application was accepted, but stamped with seven

restrictions.

Two of seven restriction, he found to be highly

problematic.

There are :

i)The speakers can’t touch on political issues.

ii)There only can have 7 speakers.

He appealed and the issue was taken to Supreme

Court.

Lastly, Chai Choon Hon’s appeal was allowed.

This decision could be said to be in line with the

provisions of Art. 10 (1)(a) of federal

constitution : every citizen has the right to

freedom of speech and expansion.

1. Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ismail

Article 7 (1) protection against retrospective criminal laws and

repeated trials.

Based on Dicey's rule, no one is above the law, the society must

be governed by law and all must be equally subject to the law.

The government must also give respect to the law.

This case is definitely upholding the rule of law.

2. Ah Thian v Government of Malaysia

Article 8 (1) equality.

According to Dicey’s rule, the constitutional rights of

Englishmen are secured first and foremost by the common law,

not by written constitution.

The judicial decisions in this case determine by using particular

cases brought before the courts.

3. Chai Choon Hoon v Ketua Polis Daerah, Kampar and

Government of Malaysia

Article 10 (1) (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of

speech and expression.

AV Dicey’s said that all public or government officials are

accountable to the law.

They do not have any special powers, privileges, protection, or

exemption from the law.

The appeal is approved under rule of law

The rule of law is an essential element to uphold the rights

and liberties for the people to ensure justice.

But the fundamental liberties in PART II are limited by

federal law, such as Sedition Act 1948, The Security Offences

(Special Measures) Act 2012, and The Peaceful Assembly Act

2012.

This shows that Malaysia does not totally disregard the rule

of law but even respect the rule of law.