This document summarizes Articles 6 and 7 of the Malaysian Constitution regarding prohibitions on slavery, forced labour, retrospective criminal laws, and double jeopardy. Article 6 prohibits slavery and forced labour with some exceptions for compulsory national service. Article 7 protects against retrospective criminal laws by prohibiting punishment for acts that were legal when committed and prohibits greater punishment than what was prescribed by law at the time. It also protects against double jeopardy by prohibiting trying someone again for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction. There are some exceptions listed for both articles.

1. ARTICLE 6:SLAVERY & FORCED
LABOUR PROHIBITED

2. ARTICLE 6
 A.6(1) – No person shall be held in slavery.
 Absolute prohibition
 A.6(2) – all forms of forced labour are prohibited, but
parliament may by law provide for compulsory service
for national purposes.
 3 exceptions;
1. Parliament may by law provide for compulsory
service for national purposes (A.6(2))
2. Work incidental to the serving of a judicial sentence
of imprisonment shall not be taken to be forced
labour (A.6(3)

3. 3. If under the authority of law, the
functions of one public authority are
transferred to another public authority,
A.6(4) permits the transfer of
employment of worker from the first
public authority to the second.

4. ARTICLE 7: PROTECTION AGAINST
RETROSPECTIVE CRIMINAL LAWS AND
REPEATED TRIALS

5. ARTICLE 7(1)
 A.7(1) – no person shall be punished for an act or
omission which was not punishable by law when it was
done or made, and no person shall suffer greater
punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law
at the time it was committed.
 S.19 of the Interpretation Act – the commencement of
an Act or subsidiary legislation shall be the date
provided in the law or, where no date is provided, the
day following the gazette of the law.
 A backdated law can validate illegalities or invalidate
acts that were legal at the time they were committed.
However, it is justified in some circumstances.

6.  In the interest of fair criminal proceeding,
A.7(1) creates 2 safeguards against
backdated criminal legislation;
 A law creating a new penal offence
cannot have effect back in time
 If the penalty for a criminal offence is
enhanced, the law increasing the penalty
cannot be applied retrospectively.

7. Creating new offence
 In criminal proceedings, the law applicable to the
charge must be the law existing at the time of
the commission or omission of the act and not
the law applicable at the time of the trial or
verdict.
 No matter how anti-social or morally
reprehensible a conduct may be, if it is not
explicitly prohibited by law, no prosecution can
be mounted in relation to it.

8. Increasing the penalty
 If the penalty for a criminal offence is enhanced, the
amending law imposing the greater punishment cannot
be applies retrospectively.
 PP v Mohammed Ismail – the defendant was charged
with drug trafficking which was punishable with life
imprisonment or death under s.39B(1) of DDA 1983.
while his trial was pending, the law was amended to
provide for a mandatory death penalty. At the close
trial the PP invited the court to impose the enhanced
penalty. Held: the amendment could not apply to the
defendant’s case as it was enacted after the offence
had been committed.

9. Permissible exceptions
a) The word ‘punishment’ in A.7(1) refers to criminal
sanction and not civil penalties – Loh Kooi Choon
v Government
b) Amendment to Constitution are a civil nature &
can be legislated retrospectively.
c) Retrospective of substantive criminal laws only
i.e. offence & penalty. Procedural penal laws can
be backdated.

10. 1. Retrospective amendment to criminal
procedure that converted a trial jury to trial
by judge alone was allowed (Lim Sing Hwa v
PP)
2. The criminal procedure were amended after
the commission of the alleged crime but
before commencement of the trial. Held: the
protection under A.7(1) is against conviction
& sentence only and not against the
procedure trial.

11.  Reducing the scope of judicial review of a
preventive detention order by retrospective
legislation dies not violate A.7(1) – PP v Musa
 Criminal laws decreasing the penalty for an
offence or abolishing an offence can be
backdated
 A.7(1) can be suspended from emergency
legislation like the Emergency Essential Powers
Act 1979 which was backdated to 1975.

12. ARTICLE 7(2)
 A.7(2) – a person who has been acquitted or
convicted of an offence shall not be tried
again for the same offence.
 Nemo debet bis vexari – a man must not be
put twice in peril for the same offence.
 Section 303 CPC

13. Exceptions
 Discharge –
 a discharge does not amount to acquittal (DNA)
 Uthayakumar a/l Ponnusamy v PP – a ‘discharge’
may also result because the charge are badly
framed.
 Discharge does not release/relieve the accused
from suspicion, does not amount to a verdict of
‘not guilty’, does not bar re-arrest and retrial on
the same charge at some future date.

14.  Quashing of earlier trial
 The rule against double jeopardy does not
apply If the previous trial was quashed & a re-
trial ordered (Sau Soo Kim v PP)
 Fan Yew Teng v PP – MP as prosecuted &
convicted of sedition. On his application the
entire proceeding was quashed because of a
failure to hold a mandatory preliminary
enquiry. Subsequently he was prosecuted
again for the same offence. Held: the 1st
trial
having quashed, the re-trial does not violate
A.7(2)

15.  Different offence
 If in the subsequent trial, the accused is tried
for a different offence on the same set of
facts.
 Jamali adnan v PP – ‘different offence’
means an offence, whose ingredients are not
the same.
 Nadarajan a/l Somasundram – the different
offence could be based on the same set of
facts as were relied upon in the first trial.

16.  Technical error
 If the detention order was wrongly made
out, or if the law authorising detention did
not apply to the detainee, the detainee may
be released
 Re Datuk James Wong Kim Min - the plaintiff
was detained in west malaysia under a law
that applied only in sarawak. Habeas corpus
was issued to order his release. But this
release did not bar a subsequent detention
which as properly made out under the
correct law.

17.  Appeals – if a person is acquitted & the
prosecutor files an appeal
 Disciplinary proceedings –
 if the subsequent proceedings is non-
criminal in nature & is in forum different
from a criminal court
 Mohamed Yusoff Samadi v AG – a school
teacher was acquitted of outraging the
modesty of his pupils but subsequently tried,
convicted & dismissed for bringing disrepute
to his profession.

18.  Multiplicity of proceedings – trial in one court on
charges also pending in another court does not
amount to double jeopardy – Teh Cheng Poh
 Civil proceedings –
 Imposition of a criminal penalty is no bar to a
civil action
 O J Simpson – an acquittal in a murder trial
did not immunise the accused against a later
civil action for recovery of damages.

19.  Re-trial – appellate criminal courts have power to
order a new trial – PP v Munusamy; PP v Khai
Chin
 Preventive detention
 Saravanan a/l K S Somu v Timbalan Menteri
Dalam Negeri – the applicant was detained
under s.4(1) of the Emergency (Public Order
and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969.
one of the allegations of the fact in the
detention order was the same as a charge
which already been preferred against him at
johore bharu sessions court. Held:

20.  The doctrine could only apply where a person
has earlier been acquitted or convicted and is
charged again for the same offence
 The acquittal of an accused does not necessarily
mean that he cannot be regarded as acting in a
manner prejudicial to the purposes set out in
s4(1) of the ordinance
 A detention without trial under the ordinance is
quiet different from an ordinary criminal
proceeding in which charges are preferred.

21.  An order of detention under the ordinance is
not illegal merely because it nullifies a
previous order of discharge or acquittal by a
court in a criminal case.