SISTEM KEADILAN JENAYAH : JAMIN / BAIL

Nota : Ini adalah nota-nota kulaih lama dan juga catatan tambahan oleh rakan-rakan sekelas ( 2000) mengenai tajuk SKJ. Semuga dengan paparan ini , semua pelayar dapat memahami pengertian jamin, kuasa jaminan dan perkara-perkara yang berkaitan dengan Jamin. Anda semua perlu tahu hak anda. Jadi ini mungkin berguna.

Sistem Keadilan Jenayah
Jamin.

Jamin.

1. `a delivery or bailment, of a person to his sureties, upon their giving.... sufficient security for his appearance : he being supposed to continue in their friendly custody,instead of going to gaol`

( satu penyerahan atau jaminan seseorang kepada penjaminnya setelah memberi.... keselamatan secukupnya untuk kehadiran: dia seharusnya meneruskan `tahanan mesra` menggantikan pemergian ke penjara).

2. Definisi lain boleh dilihat dalam kes Yusof bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor [1995] 3 MLJ 66 yang dinyatakan seperti berikut

`Bail, in simple language, means security taken from a person to appear on a fixed date before a court. The meaning of the word ‘bail’ as ordinarily and commonly understood is to set free a person who is under arrest, detention or is under some kind of restraint by taking security for his appearance

3. ( Jamin dalam bahasa mudah adalah keselamatan yang diambil dari seseorang untuk hadir di mahkamah pada tarikh yang ditetapkan. Maksud perkataan jamin pada biasanya difahami adalah untuk membebaskan seseorang yang ditangkap,ditahan atau satu bentuk sekatan lain dengan mengambil keselamatan kehadirannya).

4. Bon (bond)

satu alat (instrument) yang mengikat seseorang. Ini bermakna penjamin , wang cagaran adalah bon. Bon juga termasuklah ikatan supaya berkelakuan baik.

Bon Jaminan bolehlah di tafsir kepada jamin dan bon yang dikenakan pada seseorang untuk hadir ke mahkamah pada tarikh yang ditetapkan.

5. Terdapat 3 kelas jamin:

i. Boleh dijamin ( bailable).
ii. Tidak boleh dijamin ( non- bailable).
iii. Tidak boleh dijamin langsung ( unbailable).

6. Kesalahan yang boleh dijamin terdapat di bawah seksen 387 CPC.

387. When person may be released on bail
(1) When any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by a police officer or appears or is brought before a Court and is prepared at any time while in the custody of that officer or at any stage of the proceedings before the Court to give bail, that person shall be released on bail by any police officer in charge of a police station or by any police officer not under the rank of Corporal or by that Court.
(2) The police officer or the Court, if he or it thinks fit, may instead of taking bail from that person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.

7. Syarat seksen ini.

i. Kesalahan boleh dijamin.
ii. Ditahan/tangkap tanpa waran.
iii. Bersedia menerima jaminan.
iv. Hendaklah (shall) dibebaskan dengan oleh polis berpangkat Koperal ke atas. Perkataan yang digunakan adalah shall dan ini bermaksud ianya adalah hak orang ditangkap untuk mendapat jamin jika dia bersedia menerima jamin yang ditawarkan.

8. Kesalahan yang boleh dijamin seperti dinyatakan di ruangan 5 jadual pertama CPC. Seksen 387(ii) membenarkan bon jaminan diri sendiri dibuat tanpa penjamin.

Walau pun jamin adalah hak seseorang tetapi ianya bersyarat dengan seksen 117 CPC. Perkara ini diputuskan dalam kes Maja Anak Kus v PP [1985] 1 MLJ 311.

Contoh kes lain SEBASTIAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, [1968] 2 MLJ 214, [REGINA v LIM KWANG SENG & ORS [1956] 1 MLJ 178.

9. Kesalahan tidak boleh dijamin adalah di bawah seksen 388 CPC.

388. When person accused of non-bailable offence may be released on bail
(1) When any person accused of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by a police officer or appears or is brought before a Court, he may be released on bail by the officer in charge of the police district or by that Court, but he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life:

Provided that the Court may direct that any person under the age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail.

(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of that officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.

(3) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under subsection (1) or (2) shall record in writing the reasons for so doing.

(4) If at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered.

(5) Any Court may at any subsequent stage of any proceeding under this Code cause any person who has been released under this section to be arrested and may commit him to custody.

10. Syarat penting seksen ini:

i. Kesalahan tidak boleh dijamin dan hanya boleh dibebaskan oleh KPD.dan mahkamah
ii. Kuasa membebaskan adalah atas budibicara kerana perkataan `may` digunakan.

11. Seksen ini merujuk kepada 3 jenis pesalah:

i. Kesalahan tidak boleh dijamin dengan kesalahan hukuman mati atau penjara seumur hidup dan tidak ada sebab munasabah mempercayai pesalah melakukan kesalahan tersebut.

ii. Kesalahan tidak boleh dijamin dengan kesalahan hukuman mati atau penjara seumur hidup dan ada sebab munasabah mempercayai pesalah melakukan kesalahan tersebut.

iii. Kesalahan tidak boleh dijamin dengan kesalahan hukuman mati atau penjara seumur hidup dan ada sebab munasabah mempercayai pesalah melakukan kesalahan tersebut tetapi pesalah adalah terdiri dari perempuan, orang muda ,orang sakit/uzur atau tidak berupaya.

12. Bagi para i dan iii mahkamah mempunyai budi bicara membebaskan dengan jamin. Bagi kesalahan ii mahkamah tidak boleh melakukannya.

13. 12 faktor yang diambil kira oleh mahkamah untuk membebas dengan jamin mengikut Mahlal on Criminal Procedure Code.

1. Sama ada terdapat sebab munasabah untuk mempercayai tertuduh bersalah dengan kesalahan.
2. Keadaan dan keberatan kesalahan ( nature and gravity of the offence).
3. Keadaan keterangan yang menyokong keterangan.
4. Teruknya dan darjah hukuman jika sabitan dibuat.
5. Jaminan sekiranya tertuduh dibebaskan dengan jamin dia tidak akan melarikan diri atau menghalang pihak pendakwa.
6. Bahaya kesalahan diteruskan atau diulangi.
7. Bahaya saksi di kacau (tempered).
8. Sama ada tertuduh jika dibebaskan dengan jamin berkemungkinan mengacau keterangan pendakwa.
9. Sama ada tertuduh berkemungkinan membina keterangan palsu untuk menyokong pembelaannya.
10. Peluang untuk tertuduh membuat persiapan untuk pembelaanya.
11. Kelakuan,pendapatan dan status yang tertuduh.
12. Lamanya tertuduh di tahan dan kemungkinan kelengahan yang lebih lanjut.

14. Ada tiga tambahan :

· Keterangan yang ada untuk menyokong pertuduhan terhadap OKT
· Ada jaminan tidak mengaggu perjalanan kes
· Tidak memalsukan bukti/keterangan

Lampiran kes-kes mengenai jamin.


15. YUSOF BIN MOHAMED V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1995] 3 MLJ 66

Catchwords:
Criminal Procedure — Bail — Non-bailable offence — Bail pending appeal against sentence — Accused pleaded guilty to charge — Whether bail will be granted — General principles of bail — Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6) Ch XXXVIII

Pemohon mengaku salah kepada tiga pertuduhan di bawah s 397 Kanun Keseksaan (NMB Bab 45) (‘Kanun Keseksaan’) di mahkamah sesyen, dan telah dihukum: (i) tujuh tahun penjara dan lima sebatan rotan; (ii) dua tahun penjara dan tiga sebatan rotan; dan (iii) dua tahun penjara, untuk pertuduhan masing-masing. Ketiga-tiga hukuman tersebut dijalankan secara konsekutif.

Pemohon juga mengaku salah kepada pertuduhan yang lain di hadapan mahkamah sesyen yang berlainan, dan telah secara serentak dihukum lapan tahun penjara dan lima sebatan rotan. Pemohon memfailkan notis rayuannya di Mahkamah Tinggi terhadap hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh mahkamah sesyen tersebut. Walau bagaimanapun, hakim mahkamah sesyen tidak membenarkan penggantungan perlaksanaan pemenjaraan dan pemberian jaminan kepada pemohon sementara menunggu rayuan. Pemohon memohon kepada Mahkamah Tinggi untuk jaminan.

Diputuskan:

Diputuskan, menolak permohonan untuk jaminan:

(1) Di bawah undang-undang umum mengenai jaminan dalam Bab XXXVIII Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (NMB Bab 6), jaminan adalah hanya diberikan sebagai suatu hak tertuduh jika ia melibatkan kesalahan boleh jamin. Bagi kesalahan tidak boleh jamin, pemberian jaminan harus dilakukan dengan ketelitian kehakiman. Perlindungan awam daripada penjenayah mestilah dipertimbangkan berdasarkan anggapan ketakbersalahan seseorang sehingga dapati bersalah.

(2) Pertimbangan yang mahkamah harus mengambil kira untuk memutuskan sama ada untuk memberikan jaminan atau tidak adalah jenis dan keseriusan kesalahan; sifat keterangan pihak pendakwa; kemungkinan yang munasabah bahawa tertuduh akan hadir pada hari perbicaraan; kekhuatiran yang munasabah bahawa saksi mungkin dipengaruhi oleh pihak pemohon; perlindungan awam daripada penjenayah; dan pertimbangan lain seperti kecenderungan tertuduh untuk melakukan kesalahan selanjutnya, serta kelakuannya yang mungkin terhadap perkara, orang atau hal di sekelilingnya.

(3) Untuk sementara waktu, penjara adalah jawapan yang terbaik untuk pemohon. Beliau bukan sahaja telah mengaku salah terhadap pertuduhan yang melibatkan kesalahan yang tidak boleh dijamin, tetapi adalah jelas daripada rekod sabitannya yang dahulu bahawa beliau telah terbabit di dalam banyak kesalahan yang mempunyai ciri-ciri yang sama, dan oleh itu, beliau mempunyai kecenderungan untuk melakukan jenayah yang sama lagi jikalau diberi kebebasan. Lagipun, amaun yang terlibat ialah RM3 juta, dan pemohon telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 400 Kanun Keseksaan tersebut apabila dia diberi jaminan dahulu.]

16. MAJA ANAK KUS v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1985] 1 MLJ 311

Catchwords:

Criminal Law and Procedure — Charge of offence under s 324 Penal Code — Bailable offence — Whether accused can be authorised to be detained in police custody for further investigation — Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6), ss 28, 117 and 383.
Penal Code, s 324 — Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon — Detention of accused — Whether order rightly made.

Facts:
In this case the appellant was arrested for an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon under s 324 of the Penal Code, a bailable offence. The learned Magistrate made an order authorising his detention in police custody for 14 days under the provisions of s 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant appealed.

Holdings:
Held, dismissing the appeal: the learned Magistrate had exercised her discretion rightly in this case and had fully complied with the provisions of s 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

REGINA v LIM KWANG SENG & ORS, [1956] 1 MLJ 178 (kes Singapore)

Catchwords:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1955, ss 241 and 406 — Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1954, s 7 — Offence bailable as of right — Application for remand in public custody — Penal Code s 147.

Facts:

In this case eight persons were charged under s 147 of the Penal Code, which is a bailable offence. The prosecution applied that the accused be remanded in custody for four days. This was opposed by counsel for the accused, who applied for bail. The learned Magistrate purporting to act under s 241 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1955, made the order for remand. The case was referred to the High Court under s 7 of the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1954.

Holdings:

Held: (1) the special procedural provision laid down in s 7 of the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1954, could not have been intended by the Legislature to abrogate the substantive right of bail conferred by s 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1955; (2) the learned Magistrate in this case should have acceded to the request of counsel of the accused and have offered them bail before deciding to grant a postponement under s 241 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1955.

17. SEBASTIAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1968] 2 MLJ 214

[ Sabjek telah dituduh kerana gagal hadir di Mahkamah sebagai saksi dibawah seksen 174 KK. Rekod sebelum itu menunjukkan beliau telah hadir sebanyak 7 kali. Pada 27/8/68 sabjek gagal hadir sebagai saksi walaupun sapina telah diserahkan. Magistrate telah mengeluarkan waran tangkap tanpa jamin oleh sebab ketidak hadiranya. Sabjek telah menyerah diri tetapi diberitahu oleh Magistrate tunggu untuk ditangkap. Setelah ditangkap beliau dihukum dan resit pula dikeluarkan atas nama saksi lain yang tidak hadir. Cara sapina diserahkan kepada sabjek adalah seorang anggota polis memotong tarikh lama diatas sapina dan di ganti dengan tarikh baru. Tiada sapina baru dikeluarkan dengan chop mahkamah. Diputuskan magistrate tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk menggantikan kesalahan yang boleh dijamin ( seksen 174) kepada kesalahan yang tidak boleh dijamin iaitu dengan tidak membenarkan jamin didalam waran tangkap. Cara menyampaikan sapina juga tidak wajar dan oleh yang demikian sabitan keatas sabjek dibawah seksen 174 di ketepikan]

Penal Code s 174 — Witness not appearing on date fixed for hearing though subpoenaed — Warrant of arrest — Witness surrendering to court — Irregular endorsement on subpoena by police personnel — Bailable offence — Conviction of witness — Whether justified. Constitutional Law — Right to liberty.

Facts:
Six persons were arrested and charged with rioting sometime in May 1967. The trial was adjourned from time to time on no less than Seven occasions when finally it was concluded. The accused was one of the persons subpoenaed as a witneses at the trial of the six accused. The seventh rioter was arrested sometime in March 1968. The accused was also one of the two witneses sub-poenaed to attend court. On the day fixed for hearing the prosecution applied for an adjournment and a fresh date was fixed for hearing on 27 August 1968. When the case was called on 27 August 1968 the prosecuting officer advised the magistrate that two of the witnesses (one of whom was the accused) had failed to turn up in court. The magistrate then issued a warrant for the arrest of the accused with the further order that no bail was to be allowed. He then adjourned the case to 13 November 1968. On 28 August 1968, on hearing of the order of arrest against him, the accused went to the court to surrender himself.

He was brought before the magistrate, and the magistrate told the accused to go home and await arrest. The accused was arrested on 17 September 1968 and charged with intentionally omitting to appear in court on 27 August 1968. No facts were given and no reference was made to any allegation that the facts were as in the charge. After a plea in mitigation the accused was fined $100 which was paid but he was issued a receipt under a different name. The accused asked for a reconsideration of his case by letter.

Holdings:

Held: (1) the record clearly showed that the magistrate had made the bailable offence under s 174 of the Penal Code a non-bailable one. The learned magistrate had no right whatsoever to deprive a subject of his constitutional right to liberty and to be tried according to law;

(2) the correct procedure where a man surrenders himself to a warrant of arrest would be to put him on bond for his appearance on the date and then release him;

(3) at the trial of the accused of the charge under s 174 of the Penal Code no facts were given and the accused was never asked to admit the facts which would establish his guilt and therefore a grave injustice was inflicted upon him in the case;

(4) the endorsement of a new date of hearing on the subpoena on 27 August 1968 by a police personnel was not a proper or effective endorsement so that in the result there had not been served on the accused a proper subpoena to enforce his presence in court on 27 August 1968 and accordingly no offence had been committed under s 174 of the Penal Code.


Penghuni Gua