You are on page 1of 1

Whether Xalatan, Pilo, and Timoptol's fundamental rights have been infringed.

Fundamental liberties are rights and freedoms that we have as human beings. Some fundamental
liberties are set out in the Constitution. Because these rights and freedoms are set out in the
Constitution, they are said to be 'guaranteed' and cannot be taken away from us unless the
Constitution itself allows it. Article 5(3) of Federal Constitution states where a person is arrested
he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult
and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
This article is divided into two limbs; right to know the ground of their arrest, and the right to
consult their lawyer after they are being arrested. For the first limb, it shows that police are not
empowered to arrest for the sole purpose of questioning or for fishing for evidence. The grounds
must already be in existence at the time a person is arrested. It means that police must already have
a reasonable suspicious that an offence has been committed, is being committed or about to be
committed. In Chong Kim Loy v Timbalan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, the arrestee was told
that his ground of arrest is related to his drug trafficking activity. However, he has not been told that
his ground of arrest was actually correlate with drug trafficking which can be sentenced with death
mandatory according to Section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. It was held that oral
communication of the grounds is sufficient and does not need to be in strict legal terminology as
long as the arrestee understand the order. According to the case given, Xalatan, Pilo, and Timoptol's
fundamental rights has been infringed under Article 5(3) because they are unaware of their ground
of arrest.
Secondly, the second limb of this article gives the right to the arrestee to consult with their legal
practitioner after being arrested. However, in the case of Ooi Ah Phua v Officer in Charge of
Criminal Investigation, it was held delay of 10 days of consultation with lawyers in a police lock-up
can be postponed pending police investigations. It emphasize that a balance must be struck between
the entitlement of the arrestee and the duty of police to collect evidence. In the case given, Xalatan,
Pilo, and Timoptol were detained at the Shah Alam police station for two days and denied legal
representation. This obviously shows that their right to consult with their lawyer has been
infringed.

In conclusion, the fundamental rights of Xalatan, Pilo and Timoptol has been infringed according to
article 5(3) of Federal Constitution.

You might also like