Imagine you’re driving back home. It’s 3.00 am. The road is clear or is supposedly clear. The lights are dim, almost non-existent. You start to wonder if you should pay more taxes to keep the street lights on. You’re taking it nice and slow and squinting your eyes to get a better view of the road ahead. Then out of nowhere, 30 silhouettes on bicycles suddenly appear in front of you. The worst happens. Unfortunately, there were serious casualties.
At this juncture, ask yourself – does it matter who you are and what you look like? Exactly. It doesn’t, and it shouldn’t be to Sam Ke Ting, the then 22-year-old driver of the car that tragically collided into 30 teenagers riding “basikal lajak,” i.e. illegally-modified bicycles with handlebars level with the seat, instantly killing eight and injuring eight others.
Following investigations, Sam Ke Ting was charged in early 2017 under Section 4(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 at the Johor Bahru Magistrate’s Court. In essence, the charge accused Sam Ke Ting of driving recklessly or dangerously causing the death of the eight teens.
After several days of trial, the Magistrate found that the Prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and it was unsafe to convict Sam Ke Ting. She was acquitted.
The Prosecution then appealed to the High Court, and it was allowed. The High Court overruled the Magistrate’s decision and Sam Ke Ting was sentenced to six years imprisonment and a RM6,000 fine.
Sam Ke Ting appealed to the Court of Appeal and in April 2023, the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that the charge levied against her was defective. The High Court’s decision was set aside and Sam Ke Ting was acquitted of the charge.
The Court of Appeal was of the view that there was a duplicity in the charge i.e. driving recklessly OR driving dangerously causing death. Basically, there were two charges lumped together into one charge. Legally speaking, this is not proper. Section 163 of the Criminal Code Procedure Code states that each charge must be specific and must only set out one offence.
Whilst at first glance, this seems like a technical point, it struck at the core of the charge. The law provides that an accused has the right to know with absolute clarity what he/she is being charged with, otherwise he/she would be left guessing not knowing exactly what to defend him/herself against.
Furthermore, the Prosecution did admit that there was a flaw in the charge but attempted to argue that the flaw did not prejudice Sam Ke Ting. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument.
You may wonder why was there no further appeal to the Federal Court, the highest court of the land? This is because under the Malaysian legal system, there are only two tiers of appeals available. A Magistrate’s Court is a subordinate court. Any appeal from here will be heard by the High Court, followed by a second appeal at the Court of Appeal. Simply put, both of tiers of appeal had been exhausted.
The Court of Appeal ordered that justice be served, and it was. It was a long wait for Sam Ke Ting whose future remains lit despite the scar this ordeal may have caused her. In the end, it was not a trial of empathy; it was a trial by law. It may seem cold, but it is justice.
About the Author
Afiq Iskandar is a Legal Associate of XK Law. He graduated from MARA University of Technology, Malaysia. Afiq has multiple interests in life beyond reading law viz. sports, film, music and poetry. He believes that art, in whatever form they may be, is a necessity of life.
