OCTOBER 23 — The Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) is the general law on criminal procedure which is to be followed to bring offenders to justice. The procedure starts from reporting a crime to the police, the investigation and the trial in court, to sentencing upon conviction and appeals therefrom.
Now, Section 260 of the CPC provides for the power to compound offences, which is also referred to as “composition of offences”. The section tabulates the offences that are compoundable.
A total of 23 out of 500 odd offences under the Penal Code are compoundable, which includes abetment of the said offences or attempt to commit them.
Examples of such offences are causing hurt (Section 323), wrongful restraint (Section 341), use of criminal force (Section 352), house-trespass (Section 448) and criminal defamation (Section 500).
For all compoundable offences, the victim may compound the offences provided there is no prosecution pending for such offence against the offender/accused person.
If a prosecution is pending — that is, there is already a charge pending in court — then the consent of the court is required for the compound. This is so because a criminal action has been instituted against the offender.
The effect of a compound is not that the offender has not committed a crime; it only means that the victim of the crime has forgiven the offender and is willing to accept compensation.
Section 260(4) makes specific reference to the contractual nature of composition of offences. It authorises any person competent to contract on behalf of the victim to compound the offence.
Section 260(5) in turn provides that the effect of a compound is an acquittal of the offender.
Section 260 has been said to be an example of restorative justice (RJ). (See Ryan David and Selene Yap, “Composition: Legal and Theoretical Foundations” (2015) SacLJ 462)
Read here on RJ.
At the very least, compounding an offence is an alternative to imprisonment which enables offenders to be processed or diverted away from the traditional prison system.
Malaysian penal laws contain a broad spectrum of non-custodial punishments that enhance the rehabilitation/reintegration function of criminal justice.
They reflect the spirit of the “Tokyo Rules”, which is the name given by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to the UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures.
Since these Rules were defined by the work of the UN Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) based in Tokyo, UNGA approved the Rules to be known as the Tokyo Rules.
The Tokyo Rules reflect the sentiment that the ultimate goal of the criminal justice system is the reintegration of the offender into society and the restriction of liberty is only justifiable from the viewpoints of public safety, crime prevention, just retribution and deterrence.
UNGA recommended member states to implement the Tokyo Rules at the national and regional levels (UNGA Resolution 45/110).
So, with the acquittal effect of a composition under Section 260, a “clean state” is achieved which enables the uninterrupted social integration of the offender.
In the recent case of a high profile accused person charged under Section 323 of the Penal Code, it would mean enabling the uninterrupted work of the person who is tasked with strengthening security at the country’s entry points and who has received strong public support and approval.
This is not about hushing up a matter. (See the almost century-old Indian case of Singheshwar Prasad v Ali Hassan A.I.R [1929] Patna 512)
It is about giving effect to a measure that is already provided by, and has been an integral part of, the law that also enhances the country’s criminal justice system.
It is about putting the human face on the law.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
