Slapping Case In Johor Rigmarole Of Pleading Guilty To A Charge Ensures Justice Is Upheld Hafiz Hassan

---

 



When an accused pleads guilty to a charge, it is a step in a rigmarole of process that starts with the charge preferred by the prosecution against the accused read in the language which the accused understands and is conversant with.
If the charge is before a magistrate, the magistrate must ensure that the accused understands the charge as provided for under Section 173(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
The accused then pleads guilty if he chooses so. He must have the choice and not simply be told to plead guilty.
The plea of guilty is followed by the process wherein the magistrate must ascertain that the accused understands the nature and consequence of his plea of guilty to the charge.
It requires the magistrate to explain to the accused in no uncertain terms that once the plea of guilty is accepted, he will be convicted and sentenced forthwith. If he has to suffer incarceration, he has to succumb to it with immediate effect.
The magistrate, normally through the court’s interpreter, will explain to the accused that consequent to him pleading guilty, there will be no trial of the case by testimony of witnesses and the punishment according to the penal provision may be inflicted on him as a result of the conviction.
It is essential that before the plea of guilty by the accused is accepted by the magistrate, the accused must agree to the facts of the case presented by the prosecution in the court.
The facts play an important part in the plea of guilty proceeding as it will demonstrate the mode and manner the accused had committed the offence as charged.
The facts have to be worded clearly so as not to confuse or derail the accused. If he is confused or derailed, he has a choice not to admit to the facts tendered by the prosecution.
If that occurs, the court may seek clarification from the prosecution to unravel the confusion faced by the accused.
If the accused continues to dispute the facts, the court is left with no alternative but to reject the plea of guilty by the accused and fix the case for trial. (See the judgment of Judicial Commissioner Muniandy Kannyappan (as he then was) in Suhaili Bin Mohd Yusuf v Public Prosecutor [2019])
Magistrate A. Shaarmini was therefore correct to reject the plea of guilty by 65-year-old accused Abdul Razak Ismail after he disputed the facts of the case read out in the Johor Baru Magistrate’s Court.
Abdul Razak has since pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to a fresh charge of slapping a non-Muslim man for eating in public during Ramadan. Earlier, the 65-year-old retiree was released after Magistrate Shaarmini granted a discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA).
The rigmarole of pleading guilty to a charge ensures justice is upheld. - malaymail
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---