Full Story
Advertisement
What You Think
NOVEMBER 5 — In the case Bhandulanda Jayatilake v Public Prosecutor [1982], the facts were straightforward.The accused gave false testimony at the murder trial of one S. Karthigesu who was convicted and sentenced to death. That case rested on the accused’s testimony which provided the main link in the largely...
Full Story
Full Story
![In the celebrated case of Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris v Public Prosecutor [1977] 2 MLJ 155, one of the issues raised was that Section 418 of the Criminal Procedure Code (under the provisions of which the case was transferred from the subordinate court to the High Court for trial) was inconsistent with Article 8 of the Federal Constitution and therefore void by virtue of Article 4. — Reuters file pic](https://www.malaymail.com/malaymail/uploads/images/2024/11/05/243346.jpg "In the celebrated case of Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris v Public Prosecutor [1977] 2 MLJ 155, one of the issues raised was that Section 418 of the Criminal Procedure Code (under the provisions of which the case was transferred from the subordinate court to the High Court for trial) was inconsistent with Article 8 of the Federal Constitution and therefore void by virtue of Article 4. — Reuters file pic")
What You Think / 22 h ago
Equality provision in Federal Constitution is not absolute, discrimination is permitted — Hafiz Hassan
What You Think / 1d ago
Sea level rise a clear threat to Malaysia — Raksha Pandya-Wood and Azliyana Azhari
What You Think / 1d ago
Neglected no more: why Malaysia must act to save the Orang Asli — Umayal Eswaran
More News
30 Oct 2024
Bridging the poverty divide: Urban vs rural struggles in Malaysia — Suhaiza Hanim Mohamad Zailani
29 Oct 2024
Johor’s data centre boom: An ADUN’s perspective on growth and sustainability — Ng Kor Sim
MORE
Opinion
Advertisement
