OCT 26 — The case of Raja Izzuddin Shah v PP [1979] is known to many a law student and lawyer.

The facts of the case appear in the judgment of the learned trial magistrate which were repeated by High Court Judge Hashim Yeop A Sani (as he then was) on appeal.

The facts were:

As part of the celebrations of the birthday of D.Y.M.M. Sultan Perak a Pesta was held on 11.8.77 in the compound of Istana Iskandariah Kuala Kangsar.

On that day at about 6pm the complainant – police constable (PC) – with another PC were on traffic duty in front of the gate leading to the Istana. It was instructed that no car without a specific car sticker be allowed to go into the Istana compound for the purpose of controlling traffic.

On that day a "No Entry” sign was placed in the middle of the road which ran off to the right of the road leading to Istana compound. The complainant was on duty at the spot where the "No Entry” sign was placed.

At about 7pm a green Ford Escort driven by a woman coming in the direction of the town drove into this side road without regard to the presence of the "No Entry” sign and the policeman on duty.

About 10 minutes later, the same car driven by the same driver came out from the direction from where she went earlier, drove past the "No Entry” sign and straight into the Istana compound.

There was no sticker on the car. Shortly thereafter the same car driven by the same driver came out from the Istana compound.

The complainant stopped her and told her that she had on two occasions violated the traffic sign and the offence thereby committed by her, politely.

She kept quiet and drove off in the direction of a house nearby. Shortly thereafter a person claiming to be the husband of the driver went up to the complainant and reprimanded him for doing what he had lawfully done. He then left the place.

At about 10pm on the same day, the accused went to the police guardroom near the gate to the Istana.

He asked the corporal in charge to call the complainant. On being told that the complainant was on duty at the spot where the "No Entry” sign was placed he went up to him and asked him whether he was the PC who had earlier stopped the motorcar.

When the complainant admitted doing so, the accused asked the complainant to follow him back to the guardroom, which the complainant did. In the guardroom in the presence of the corporal and another PC, the accused scolded the complainant for his lawful action.

The accused was then seated on a chair. He asked the complainant to stand at attention. When the complainant refused to do so for obvious reasons, the accused stood up and slapped the complainant.

He then dragged the complainant by the shirt and pushed him against the wall. But for the intervention of another corporal who was there at the time of the assault, the accused would have assaulted the complainant further.

The complainant did not retaliate. A police report was lodged the following day and the complainant was sent to the hospital for medical examination.

Medical examination disclosed the following injuries: 2 small abrasions measuring 1¼ cm. × ¼ cm. on the left cheek with mild underlying swelling.

The accused was charged under Section 353 of the Penal Code for assaulting a public servant – that is, the complainant – while in the execution of his duty as a public servant.

The accused pleaded guilty to the charge. In his plea of mitigation, it was submitted, among others, that the accused had thought that the complainant was being unreasonable to the woman as the road which was subject to the "No Entry” sign was the only access road to the woman's house.

It was also brought out in his mitigation that he had suffered humiliation with the criminal proceeding as he was a member of the Royal Family in the State and he had therefore suffered enough.

The accused assured the court that he would not repeat the same mistake.

It was also submitted in mitigation that the offence was committed in the privacy of the guardroom of the Istana and not in a public place.

Finally, it was submitted that the accused was a first offender.

Many a law student and lawyer will identify the above as mitigating factors to sentencing.

But many a member of the public will also identify from the above that no one is above the law – at least it was then.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.