AUG 31 — I refer to your report “PAS spiritual leader likens minister who broke self-isolation to Quranic ‘hero’, blames Health, Foreign Ministries for negligence”.
In a case that was reported 40 years ago in 1980, the accused persons were charged in the Sessions Court in Penang with being concerned in importing 6 pianos which being the products of South Africa were, by law then, prohibited from importation. After a trial, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced to the statutory minimum fine of RM10,000 each, in default 1 month’s imprisonment. The pianos were ordered to be confiscated.
The accused persons appealed to the High Court. In the High Court, the learned judge held that on the facts of the case the accused persons had no guilty mind and he therefore quashed the convictions. In his learned view, the judge held that when a man could satisfy a trial court that he was ignorant of a certain law, as for instance, the law against importing goods from a proscribed country, he had no guilty mind for him to be convicted of the offence with which he was charged.
The judge considered that there was a valid distinction between a law so notorious, as for instance of dealing with offensive weapons and dangerous drugs and a law not so obvious as the ban against certain countries. In the former class of laws, the person charged with possessing, for example, must take the consequences of his action whether he knew the law or not. He ought to know the law. In the latter class, no necessity arose for the residents of a country to acquaint themselves with the laws of the country so that if a resident acted in ignorance of a law of this kind, all he had to do to earn an acquittal for himself was to establish on a balance of probabilities that he had acted if not in innocence, at least in ignorance of the law.
It was the first distinction of its kind. Much to his credit, the Public Prosecutor applied for a certificate to refer to the Federal Court certain questions of law of public interest. The answers to the questions involved the consideration of the proper application of the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, as an extension thereof, whether there are any circumstances wherein it necessarily clashes with the more fundamental principle that no innocent man shall be convicted of an offence.
The five judges of the Federal Court took much time to consider the questions of law. That it was a majority decision of 4:1, with no less than the Lord President Suffian who dissented, indicated that answers to the questions were much deliberated.
It was Federal Court judge Chang Min Tat who was honoured with delivering the judgement of the majority, which included Chief Justice of Malaya Raja Azlan Shah, and His Lordship said as follow:
“As a general proposition, it has long been settled law that ignorance of the law will not excuse any person who has the capacity to understand the law from the consequences of any action which transgresses that law. In our understanding of this maxim, the law therefore implies a duty on the part of a resident if not to acquaint himself with a knowledge of, at least to so conduct himself as to conform at all times and conduct himself legitimately within the laws of the country or he faces the consequences of his action. And we might as well say it here, we are unable to understand how and why a person actively engaged in the importation of goods did not think it a duty he owed at least to himself to find out what the law on importation of goods was and to act accordingly.”
“There is good reason for [the maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse]. But even then, the strict application of the rule of ignorance has been somewhat tempered by a consideration, where it existed, of a situation where a person could not possibly with reasonable diligence, if he had reasons to put himself on enquiry, know of the existence of an adverse law, prohibition or ban.”
Be that as it may, the Federal Court held that the exception to the rule against ignorance of law as a defence should not be extended beyond the cases where the defendant could not possibly have known of the existence of the law he had offended against.
In short, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
So how could PAS Mursyidul Am Datuk Hashim Jasin call upon PAS members to defend Plantations and Commodities Minister Datuk Mohd Khairuddin Aman who broke the 14-day quarantine order for all returnees?
According to Hashim, the minister was not in the wrong. Blame it on the Health Ministry and the Foreign Ministry for being “negligent”.
Malaysians beg to differ.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer(s) or organisation(s) and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
