The aim of electronic tagging in Malaysia can be divided into two, a tool for monitoring under the preventive laws such as the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA), Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (POTA) and a substitution for bail pending trial and appeal. Arguably, under the POCA 1959 and POTA 2015, the ordinary criminal procedures prescribed under Criminal Procedure Code is not fully applicable, and there are special procedures provided for the disposal of cases which upon conviction, could lead to attachment of an electronic monitoring device (EMD) to the body of the person. The consequences of a conviction under these Acts are; registration of the name in the Register of Criminal, subject to police supervision with the attachment of EMD (with or without house curfew) and worst, detention. In this paper, the authors will analyze the special procedures under POCA and POTA in line with the aim of controlling crime and highlight the possible issues which may arise concerning fundamental liberty of the person ordered to be attached with tagging as well as right to fair and public hearing under Article 10 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and natural justice.
Abas, A. (2017, December 19). Man murdered at JB petrol station was secret society leader: DPM. The News Straits Times. Retrieved from https: www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2017/12/316017/man-murdered-jb-petrol-station-was-secret-society-leader-dpm
Ahmad, N. (2008). The Right to Privacy and Challenges: A Critical Review. Malayan Law Journal Articles, 5 MLJ cxxi.
Balasingam, U., and Bhatti, S.Q.Q.S. (2017). Between Lex Lata and Lex Perenda: An Evaluation of the Extent of the Right to Privacy in Malaysia. Malayan law Journal Articles, 4 MLJ xxix
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India AIR SC 2218 (Supreme Court 1997)
Bernama, (2016, February 25) Tiada Siapa boleh lepaskan diri daripada EMD’ - Sinar Online. Retrieved from https:www.sinarharian.com.my/
Chong Chee Liong 2 AMR 309 (2008) 2 MLJ 797 (2008).
Francis Coralie v Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR SC 746 (Supreme Court 1981)
Gopalan, S., and Bagaric, M. (2016). Progressive Alternatives to Imprisonment in an Increasingly Punitive (and Self-Defeating) Society Seattle University Law Review, 40 Seattle U. L. Rev 57.
Harding, A.J. (1981) Natural Justice and the Constitution. Malaya Law Review 23 Malaya L. Rev. 226
Jain, M. (2010). Indian Constitutional Law (6th Ed.). Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur: Lexis Nexis
Jayakumar, N.K. (2004). Lectures in Jurisprudence (2nd ed.). Butterworths, Wadhwa Nagpur: Lexis Nexis.
Kwang, H.P., Sabaruddin, J.S., & Dhanapal, S. (2017). The Impact of Anti-Terrorism Law and Policy on Criminal Justice System: A Case Study in Malaysia, Malayan Law Journal Articles 5 MLJ lxxxvi.
Lucas, J.R. (1980). On Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Maes, E., & Mine, B. (2013). Some Reflections on the Possible Introduction of Electronic Monitoring as an Alternative to Pre-Trial Detention in Belgium, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice. Doi:10.1111/hojo.12008
Malaysia. House of Representatives. Parliamentary Debates. (2013 October 2) Vol 13 pg 87 (Ahmad Zahid bin Hamidi)
Malaysia. House of Representatives. Parliamentary Debates. (2013 October 2) Vol 13 pg 94 (Ahmad Zahid bin Hamidi)
Malaysia. House of Representatives. Parliamentary Debates. (2013 October 2) Vol 13 pg 136 (Noh bin Omar)
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR SC 597 (1978)
Marouf, F.E. (2017). Alternatives to Immigration Detention, Cordozo Law Review, 38 Cordozo L. Rev. 2141.
Omar, H., Marimuthu, S. B.,& Mahali, M. (2014). Law of Evidence in Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia:Sweet & Maxwell.
Packer, H. L. (1964). Two Models of The criminal Process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol 113( November 1964 No. 1).
Plachta, M. (2016) European Union and Fair Trials Take-up a Problem of Pre-trial Detention, International Enforcement Law Reporter, 32 No 7
Ram, G.S. (2017). The Dynamics of Constitutional Interpretation. Malayan Law Journal Articles, 4 MLJ 1
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1995 SC 264 (Supreme Court 1995)
Tan See Boon v PP, 1 MLJ 219 (1966).
Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan & Anor 1 MLJ 261, (Court of Appeal 1996)
In-Text Citation: (Hassan, 2018)
To Cite this Article: Hassan, C. A. (2018). Electronic Tagging as a Crime Control Model in Malaysia: A Way Forward. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(11), 698–710.
Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
