Salim Bashir says convicts may face longer jail terms if they fail to pay fines and compensation.
Salim Bashir told FMT that offences, particularly those under the Penal Code, typically carry prison sentences and fines.
“They may serve extended custodial sentences if they fail to pay fines and compensation, as the law provides for a default sentence,” said Salim, a former Bar president.
He added that imposing an additional jail term on convicted persons for failing to comply with monetary orders, including compensation payments, due to extreme poverty could be seen as a regressive move.
This could, in turn, have wider implications on a convict’s family, particularly if he is the sole breadwinner, the lawyer said.
Salim, also a former co-chairman of the Bar Council’s criminal law committee, added that it would be imprudent for the prosecution to apply for compensation orders against persons convicted and sentenced to death.
“However, that is the legal position, as victims or their representatives are entitled to seek compensation,” he said.
Salim was responding to Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar’s directive requiring deputy public prosecutors (DPPs) to seek compensation orders for victims of crimes, including those killed by drivers driving under the influence.
Dusuki said Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives courts the authority to order convicts to make a payment of costs to the prosecution, and compensation to victims or their next-of-kin.
He said public interest requires that, in appropriate cases, victims receive adequate compensation in the interests of justice.
The provision further states that courts must consider the nature of the offence, the injury or expenses sustained by the victim, the damage or loss of property suffered, the loss of income incurred by the victim, and the convict’s ability to pay compensation.
‘Section 426 must not be applied indiscriminately’
Lawyer Baljit Singh Sidhu said while DPPs may make such applications, the decision to grant compensation remains within the court’s discretion, taking into account mitigating and aggravating factors raised during sentencing submissions.
He added that requiring DPPs to make such applications could add to their workload, as the court may need to conduct an inquiry before deciding whether to grant compensation.
Baljit noted that Section 426 has long existed in the CPC but has rarely been utilised.
“In my view, this provision should not be applied indiscriminately, as it may serve little or no practical purpose,” he said.
He questioned how the provision would operate in cases involving minor offences, such as a person convicted of stealing groceries, who would likely be unable to pay compensation.
Baljit also pointed out that under Section 432 of the CPC, compensation may start from RM500, while the maximum default custodial sentence is six months.
Insurance coverage
Lawyer A Srimurugan said there is generally no need for compensation orders in road traffic cases that result in death, as most drivers are insured as required by law.
He said injured parties and the estate of the deceased may pursue substantial damages, subject to proof of liability.
“Insurers will honour claims that are bona fide,” he said. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.