Onus and Quantum of Proof for Breaching the Standard of Procedure during the Movement Control Order
Keywords:
Burden of proof, standard of proof, standard of procedure, movement control order, strict liability offenceAbstract
The objective of this research paper is to highlight on the issues relating to the onus and quantum of proof for breaching the standard of procedure (SOP) during the movement control order (MCO) due to Pandemic Covid 19 in Malaysia. In tackling the issues, the research methodology applied by the author is by analysing and evaluating some decided cases, studying the substantive laws, regulations, and procedure in enforcing movement control order. The contemporary legal issues in this article are on whom the onus (burden) of proof lies and what is the quantum (standard) of proof required for the offence of breaching social distancing during the movement control order, be it conditional, restricted or recovery. The standard of procedure always changing based on the types of movement control order made by the Federal Government. In the New Straits Times dated 4 April 2021, it was reported that 17 publics were compounded for not practicing social distancing. Many questions raise as what is the real meaning of social distancing? In which type of offence, the social distancing offence lies on? What are the elements that will constitute the offence? As to the remedies, the author has submitted the nature of the offence for breaching the SOP during MCO. The expectation result of this paper is to give a clear picture as to the matter of standard of proof and burden of proof that to be considered by the trial court in deciding the issue of breaching SOP. The significance of this paper is to point out some contemporary identical legal issues relating to SOP during MCO. The issues will be highlighted in this article.References
Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) (As at 1st September 2020).
Evidence Act 1950 (Act 56) (As at 1st September 2020).
Habibah Omar, Siva Barathi Marimuthu, Marimuthu. S. B, Mazlina Mahali. 2018. Law of Evidence in Malaysia., 2nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell: Selangor.
Hamid Sultan Bin Abu Backer. 2019. Janab’s Key to the Law of Evidence, Advocacy and Professional Ethics. 5th edn. Kuala Lumpur: Janab (M) Sdn. Bhd. https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/nasional/2021/03/795062/polis-keluar-kompaun-rm10000-langgar-sop-mulaihari-ini [15 May 2021].
Mohamad Ismail Mohamad Yunus. 2020. Criminal Liability and Its Exceptions. Johor Bahru: Penerbit UTHM.
Paul, A. 2010. Evidence: Practice and Procedure. 4th edition. LexisNexis: Petaling Jaya.
Peters, M. 2013. Law of Evidence in Malaysia. LexisNexis: Selangor. Petaling Jaya.
Safeek Affendy Razali. 2021. Polis keluar kompaun RM10,000 langgar SOP mulai hari ini. Berita Harian, 10 March.
Teoh Pei Ying. 2021. 248 arrested for flouting SOP. New Straits Times, 4 April. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2021/04/679616/248-arrested-flouting-sop [15 May 2021]
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
It is the author’s sole responsibility to ensure that all work submitted does not infringe on any existing copyright. Authors should obtain permission to reproduce or adapt copyrighted material and provide evidence of approval upon submitting the final version of the manuscript. Views expressed by authors are entirely their own. The Editorial Board shall not be responsible for views expressed and the language used in every article.