S Supreme Court set out several specific factors that should be used by the courts in evaluating any proposed expert testimony. These factors are not exclusive and some or all may not apply in any given case, but they are always the place to start the reliability analysis. The factors are as follows:. The expected error rate of the technique used.
Acceptance of the theory or technique in the relevant scientific community. Are the underlying premises upon which a technique or method empirically validated? Is there a professional literature that describes the purposes to be achieved and the methods whereby the aims of the field can be reliably realized?
Are there professional associations or societies offering contuining education to which members with established credentials are eligible to belong? Does there exist a rigorous training program whereby one can achieve basic proficiency in the discipline under the supervision of persons with established credential who can impart knowledge and experience to trainees seeking to qualify as examiners?
Is there a meaningful certification program that attests to the competence and proficiency of workers in the discipline? Has an examination protocol been developed whereby investigations can be reliably carried out and which will yield reasonably consistent results when followed by properly credentialed examiners [18]?
Forex $2021 NO Deposit Bonus
Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah kerana gagal mengambil kira bahawa tiada senarai klip video yang dirampas sebagaimana diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 36 1 dan 2 Akta Penapisan Filem dan penyitaan tidak munasabah mengikut seksyen 42 Akta Penapisan Filem [Akta ].
No person shall, in any proceedings before any court in respect of the seizure of any film, film-publicity material, book, document or other thing seized in the exercise or the purported exercise of any powers conferred under this Act, be entitled to the costs of such proceedings or to any damages or other relief unless such seizure was made without reasonable cause. As the matter is res integra I proceeded with the trial to save the public expense, the witnesses and jury being present in court.
- broker forex no deposit bonus 2017.
- Mau Naikkan Gaji PNS TNI/Polri, Prabowo: Agar Tak Bisa Disogok.
- forex trading richest?
- Take profit.
- forex 24 hours!
- $5 USD NO Deposit Welcome Bonus – AGEA.
It will be observed that although the original and amended charges are two distinct offences, they are both created by the same section of the law viz. Both require the consent of the Public Prosecutor under section 39B 3. The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor argued that the amendment was technical and as the Public Prosecutor had given his consent on the original charge he was at liberty to amend the charges in the manner he did. I do not think so. The Public Prosecutor has clearly exercised his mind in respect of the original charge when he gave his consent to prosecute some four months after the alleged offence.
It was incumbent on him however to exercise the same degree of deliberation in respect of the amended charge. He has not done so. It was held that counsel cannot depart from the specific authorisation of the Public Prosecutor. It seems to me that the same principles apply here. The facts of the case were fully before the Public Prosecutor at the time of giving his consent and he could have elected to proceed on the amended charge then.
- stock options know how.
- Forex Trading for Beginners Trade with Instaforex!
- best tips for trading binary options?
- are stock options subject to fica.
- fbs forex brasil como funciona!
- Instaforex bonus 100%.
He did not do so. It would appear therefore that the Public Prosecutor has not given his consent to prosecute under the amended charge. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah kerana gagal mengambil kira bahawa keizinan pendakwaan bertulis tidak dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut boleh dibuktikan dengan Nota Keterangan dan rakaman CRT Kes Tangkap Tersebut.
Every criminal prosecution before any court and every inquiry before a Magistrate shall, subject to the following sections, be conducted—. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah dengan menyatakan bahawa Responden Keenam boleh mengikrarkan afidavit bagi pihak Timbalan Pendakwa Raya untuk permohonan supaya Responden Kelapan menarik diri daripada mendengar Kes Tangkap Tersebut yang difailkan oleh Perayu walaupun Responden Keenam hanya seorang Pembantu Undang-Undang yang tidak mengendalikan perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut, tiada pengetahuan mengenai perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut dan tidak diwartakan sebagai Timbalan Pendakwa Raya mengikut seksyen Kanun Tatacara Jenayah.
Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah dengan menyatakan bahawa Perayu tidak pernah membangkitkan bantahan mengenai Responden Keenam mengikrarkan afidavit bagi pihak Timbalan Pendakwa Raya semasa pendengaran permohonan supaya Responden Kelapan menarik diri daripada mendengar Kes Tangkap Tersebut walaupun perkara berkenaan bantahan tersebut telah dinyatakan di perenggan 71 gg Pernyataan Tuntutan Perayu. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah dengan menyatakan bahawa tiada keperluan dalam undang-undang afidavit untuk permohonan kes jenayah diikrarkan oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya yang mengendalikan perbicaraan kes jenayah tersebut.
Powers of the Public Prosecutor in criminal prosecutions. The Solicitor-General lays considerable stress on the wide powers of the Attorney-General in England in their historical context, stating he is a master to himself, and submits the same applies to the Attorney-General of Malaysia. It must be remembered however that the constitutional rights, powers and duties of our Attorney-General are specifically spelt out in Article of the Constitution and in particular in clauses 2 and 3 thereof, and it is clause 3 of that Article which is relevant and material to the issue before me and which circumscribes and specifies the limits of his functions and powers in relation to criminal proceedings.
It would be dangerous therefore to go beyond this specific constitutional provision and rely on the position in England by historical analogy to justify any action of the Attorney-General in our country which does not come within the ambit of that provision. It must necessarily refer to the commencement of criminal proceedings and prosecutions and not to such as have already been instituted and are pending or to criminal procedure as such.
This power to so direct would, if exercised, fall squarely within his discretion to institute and conduct criminal prosecutions and proceedings. The position under section A of the Code is wholly different as it has no relation to the institution and for that matter the conduct of criminal proceedings but instead clearly and expressly concerns and relates to criminal cases already commenced and pending in the subordinate courts.
Any contrary contention would in effect in my view be tantamount to the suggestion of the Public Prosecutor arrogating to himself the legislative powers vested in Parliament under Item 4 and in particular paragraph b thereof in List I Federal List in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution, with perhaps also the not inconceptible resultant intrusion or at least a more than peripheral incursion into the sphere of Article 1 of the Constitution which provides that the judicial power of the Federation is vested in two High Courts and in such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law — namely, the Subordinate Courts Act, which specifies the subordinate courts and their respective civil and criminal jurisdiction.
Instaforex bonus 100%
It conveys the idea of leading and guiding, that is to say, the person who conducts the prosecution determines all important questions of policy involved in the course of the trial and the attitude to be adopted by the prosecution towards material objections raised or demands made by the accused with respect to the evidence. That was a case involving a charge under section of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt but the evidence adduced before the Magistrate disclosed an offence under section of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing grevious hurt.
The appellant was convicted under section and appealed on the ground that the trial was a nullity since the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the case as the evidence disclosed an offence under section The Federal Court held on a reference that it was well within the wide discretion vested in the Public Prosecutor to prefer a charge for a less serious offence than what the evidence in fact disclosed. This was clearly in my view a perfectly proper application of the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution and section i of the Code as the Public Prosecutor is not open to question by anyone if in the exercise of his discretion to institute and conduct prosecutions he chooses to prefer a charge for a lesser offence in the particular circumstances of a case.
The examples of discretion vested in the Public Prosecutor the Solicitor-General refers to in relation to the issue and refusal of sanctions for prosecution and the withdrawal of charges pertain to the institution and conduct of prosecutions and not to the regulation of criminal procedure. In this context, the provisions of section of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code on which the Code is based but which has since been repealed and re-enacted in provide an interesting contrast. That section provides for the trial of Judges, Magistrates and certain public officials only with the previous sanction of the Central or State Government as the case may be, and subsection 2 thereof provides that the Central or State Government may determine the person by whom and the manner in which the prosecution is to be conducted and also specify the court of trial.
The validity of this section which was challenged in relation to Article 14 of the Constitution of India which equates with our Article 8 1 was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in Matajog Dobey v HC Bhari AIR SC 44 as the discrimination was based upon a rational classification for the protection of public servants from harassment in the discharge of official duties.
In any event, in the exercise of his discretionary powers, the Public Prosecutor cannot discriminate at will and infringe the provisions of Article 8 1 as judicially determined in the matter of classification, differentia and nexus. If he can indeed do so, there would be no reason why in the exercise of his powers he cannot even infringe the specific provisions of Article 8 2. And equally significant is the fact that neither is there a non obstante clause in Article, 3 to eliminate the application of Article 8 1 to its provisions.
InstaForex Client Area :: Authorization
I would add that I respectfully associate myself with what Chandrachud J. In that case two of the other Judges of the Indian Supreme Court did not deal with that question, one was equivocal and only Mathew J. The Solicitor-General submits that if the Constitution allows discrimination, any such discrimination made must be upheld. That in fact is the position under Article 8 5 which expressly and specifically except provisions in respect of the five matters specified therein from being invalidated or prohibited by Article 8.
Article 3 does not however in terms make any classification whatsoever or allow discrimination but only endows the Attorney-General with discretionary powers in relation to the matters therein stipulated and is in my view subject to and must necessarily harmonise with the provisions of Article 8 1. The Solicitor-General in support of his proposition that any discrimination allowed by the Constitution must be upheld refers to two Indian cases, but there it was not discretionary discrimination at will that was allowed but classification that was made by the Constitution.
A classification made by the Constitution itself cannot of course be struck down as violating Article 8 1. There is no and cannot indeed be any provision in our or the Indian Constitution which provides for or allows discretionary discrimination at will and pleasure without any reasonable classification. The Constitution is not to be construed in any narrow and pedantic sense James v Commonwealth of Australia [] AC at p.
Article 3 cannot therefore in my view on any reasonable and acceptable interpretation provide, as the Solicitor-General contends, any form of licence to override the provisions of Article 8 1 which is a fundamental liberty under Part II of the Constitution, and perhaps even also those of Article 1 , and at the very least, in any event, applying the principle of harmonious construction of the Constitution — an accepted canon of constitutional interpretation, effect should be given to all these provisions as far as possible, and on that basis alone any exercise of discretionary powers by the Attorney-General must necessarily relate to reasonable classification and not arbitrary selection.
No resort can be had to Article 3 of the Constitution to ascertain the policy or guidance for the exercise of discretionary powers by the Attorney-General even if there were any. The Supreme Court in that case in considering the provisions of a section of a statute conferring uncontrolled power on the provincial Government to levy a turnover tax at such rates as the Government might direct without any guidance or policy laid down in that respect in the statute itself, held that such a policy could not be gathered from the constitutional provisions as this would destroy the doctrine of excessive delegation and would also sanction conferment of power by the legislature on the executive without laying down any guidelines in the statute ibid, at p.
In particular, it is a stringent requirement that a discretion should be exercised for a proper purpose, and that it should not be exercised unreasonably.
What is a No Deposit Bonus ?
In other words, every discretion cannot be free from legal restraint; where it is wrongly exercised, it becomes the duty of the courts to intervene. The courts are the only defence of the liberty of the subject against departmental aggression. In these days when government departments and public authorities have such great powers and influence, this is a most important safeguard for the ordinary citizen: so that the courts can see that these great powers and influence are exercised in accordance with law.
The existence of those factors to which the prosecuting authority may properly have regard and the relative weight to be attached to each of them may vary enormously between one case and another. All that equality before the law requires, is that the cases of all potential defendants to criminal charges shall be given unbiased consideration by the prosecuting authority and that decisions whether or not to prosecute in a particular case for a particular offence should not be dictated by some irrelevant consideration. If indeed the Attorney General was possessed of a discretion to choose between prosecuting the appellant for an offence against section 57 1 of the Internal Security Act, , or for an offence under the Arms Act, , and the Firearms Increased Penalties Act, , there is no material on which to found an argument that in the instant case he exercised it unlawfully.
The Federal Court held on a reference that it was well within the wide discretion vested inthe Public Prosecutor to prefer a charge for a less serious offence than what the evidence in fact disclosed. That in fact is the position under Article 8 5 which expressly and specifically excepts provisions in respect of the five matters specified therein from being invalidated or prohibited by Article 8. Pearson, 2 Gray , cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah kerana gagal mengambil kira fakta bahawa sabitan yang dibuat oleh Responden Kelapan tanpa bukti-bukti yang kukuh dan Perayu menjalani hukuman penjara atas sabitan yang dibuat oleh Responden Kelapan dalam rayuan Kes Tangkap Tersebut Perayu telah dilepaskan dan dibebaskan dengan merit.
It means that where a special provision is made in a special statute, that special provision excludes the operation of a general provision in the general law. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah kerana gagal memgambil kira persoalan bagaimana Peguam Kanan Persekutuan boleh mengemukakan keizinan bertulis yang tidak pernah dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah semasa perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut.
Striking out pleadings and endorsements O. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah kerana gagal mengambil kira bahawa Responden-Responden menggunakan sebahagian nota keterangan Responden Kelapan dalam perenggan 36 Pembelaan Responden-Responden walaupun Responden-Responden sendiri mempertikaikan kandungan Nota Keterangan Responden Kelapan.
No Judge or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any civil court for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of his jurisdiction, nor shall any order for costs be made against him, provided that he at the time in good faith believed himself to have jurisdiction to do so or order the act compained of.
Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah kerana gagal mengambil kira peruntukan berkenaan kekebalan seseorang Majistret adalah di bawah seksyen Akta Mahkamah Rendah Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah kerana gagal mengambil kira bahawa tiada kekebalan kehakiman mutlak di bawah seksyen Akta Mahkamah Rendah Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah dengan membuat perbicaraan penuh melalui Pernyataan Tuntutan, Pembelaan dan afidavit-afidavit yang difailkan di bawah permohonan di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah kerana gagal mengambil kira bahawa Responden-Responden mempertikaikan Rekod Rayuan yang akan digunakan untuk perbicaraan penuh dan Responden-Responden perlu mengemukakan bukti-bukti mereka sendiri melalui suatu perbicaraan penuh.
Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat keputusan membenarkan permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah kerana gagal mengambil kira isu-isu yang perlu dibicarakan yang telah dibangkitkan oleh Perayu dalam penghujahan untuk permohonan Responden-Responden di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah It is another cause of action by the appellants as appears in the statement of claim, where if the appellants succeed, damages would ensue.
It is a question for trial on evidence whether the appellants are able to prove their case or not. The first respondent, whom the appellants claimed to be the main tortfeasor in the malicious prosecution claim, has been named as a party. The appellants contended that it was the first respondent who had initiated the prosecution of the appellants which led to the criminal case against them at the Sessions Court Kuala Lumpur. From the pleadings and submissions of counsel, it is clear that both questions of fact and law arise that cannot be resolved without a trial.
Only at trial the appellants may be able to prove that:.