BRIEF NOTES : case Nooraini binti M.

Abdul Majid Lwn Pendakwa Syarie Negeri

 FACTS OF THE CASE

- Appellant Nooaraini Binti M. Abdul Majid has pleaded guilty to the charge under
Section 54 of the Melaka State Syariah Criminal Offenses Enactment 1991 which is
found to be pregnant or give birth to a child out of wedlock. The appellant has been
sentenced to a fine of RM3000 and if he does not pay a fine of 24 months in prison.
Conviction on this charge is based on the confession of the accused and the prosecutor
does not need to prove the case. Next, the appellant made an appeal to the Malacca
Syariah High Court to set aside the 24-month prison sentence and request that the
appellant be fined only.

 ISSUES
whether the trial court was hasty in taking the plea and convicting the appellant

 CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

DEFENDANT

- The judge of the Syariah Lower Court of the Jasin District, Malacca, ruled the
appellant guilty of confessing to being pregnant outside of marriage. The appellant
also entered a guilty plea when his case was first brought up in court; as a result of
this plea, he was found guilty and given the harshest sentence possible under the law,
which included a fine of RM3,000 if not paid, 24 months in prison, and a separate 24-
month sentence with a running sentence. The appellant contested the validity of the
conviction on the grounds that the court accepted his guilty plea too quickly and did
not give him enough time to hire an attorney.
 PLAINTIFF

- The judge advised the appellant to obtain legal counsel before entering his plea. The
judge asked the applicant multiple times. The first is whether or not you grasp the
charges read. Second, plead guilty or not, third, comprehend the implications of
pleading guilty, fourth, understand or not the terms of the law read to the appellant,
fifth, the trial judge requests to plead guilty or not, and sixth, the appellant responds
positively.

 JUDGMENT

- The record of proceedings revealed that, before to accepting the appellant's guilty
plea, the trial judge had questioned the appellant about the charge, the relevant
applicable legislation, and whether the appellant had truly intended to plead guilty. As
a result, the trial judge could not be accused of accepting the plea in haste. The claim
that the trial judge neglected to evaluate the voluntariness of the plea was also denied.
According to the notes, the trial judge did inquire about the situation, to which the
appellant stated that she was submitting the plea willingly.
- The clause in Section 54 of the Enactment is quite ambiguous and open to several
interpretations. In any case, the charge brought against the appellant was faulty and
inconsistent with legal requirements. Section 54 mandates "found pregnant or gives
birth to a child outside wedlock" whereas the charge reads "had admitted to pregnancy
outside wedlock". Hence, the appellant's guilty plea before the court was for
"confessing to pregnancy outside wedlock" and not to the charge of "being pregnant
or gives birth to a child outside wedlock". The charge should have been changed by
the trial judge.
- The case under appeal is not a hudud case, but rather a takzir matter. Given thus, the
syarie prosecutor misunderstood in referring to hudud laws found in the Qur'an and
Hadis.
- The punishment imposed shouldn't have been the highest permissible considering the
fact that the charge was false, and the appellant had pleaded guilty.
- As a result, the fine punishment is upheld while the jail term is reduced.
 Relevant criminal procedure / Criminal law principle (s)

- There are 3 procedures in this case. The first is the charging procedure. The appellant
pleaded guilty to the charge under Section 54 of the Melaka State Syariah Criminal
Offenses Enactment 1991, which is being found pregnant or giving birth to a child out
of wedlock.
- The second criminal procedure is the trial procedure. During the trial process, the
appellant made a false confession to the offense of pregnancy out of wedlock. The
appellant accepted a guilty plea when the case was mentioned for the first time in
court. However, the appellant argued that the court was too quick to accept the guilty
plea and that the conviction was improper.
- The next criminal procedure is the punishment procedure. The appellant was
sentenced to a punishment commensurate with the offense committed, which was
pregnancy out of wedlock. The punishment imposed by the court is a maximum fine
of RM3,000 and 24 months imprisonment according to the 1991 Syariah Offenses
Enactment of the state of Malacca. the text of the charge is flawed, and that the
appellant himself has pleaded guilty, then the sentence that should be imposed is not
necessarily as severe as possible. Therefore, the fine is maintained while the prison
sentence is waived altogether.
 Commentary

- Confession is one approach for proving a charge. Sharia court proceedings are
frequently determined only on the basis of the accused's confession, rather than proof
through witness and trial. One of the requirements for the acceptance of iqrar or
confession is that it be made freely. As a result, the rules of justice should be followed
while admitting iqrar or confession, and the court should take note of the
predisposition to convict through confession. The accused must fully comprehend the
iqrar and be provided with further information on the effects and consequences of the
iqrar. Therefore, the court should consider this problem to be a crucial factor in
assessing whether a confession or iqrar is admissible.
- In the case of Maiz, Ibnu Al Qayyim and Al Qurtubi stated that the Prophet
Muhammad SAW only sentenced Maiz for his guilty plea after cross-examining the
confession and ensuring that the confession was truly voluntary.
- Likewise in the case of Al Ghamidiyyah where the Prophet Muhammad decided the
punishment for a woman who confessed to adultery after the same confession was
still made even in four different circumstances, namely after the woman gave birth,
after her child stopped breastfeeding and after there was a guardian for her child.
- In the case of Mohd Ibrahim Mohd Sharif v. Penang Syarie Prosecutor, the defendant
thought the appeal meant the charge was being dropped, but the court determined that
there was no error or flaw in the defendant's confession that would invalidate the
conviction.
- Based on the issues, The syarie prosecutor had to question Nooraini several times
before she gave the same answer. Not only that, but he needed to prove that his
confession was voluntary.
- Therefore, the court should consider this problem to be a crucial factor in assessing
whether a confession or iqrar is admissible. The court should also clarify that the
burden of proof for a charge is not always dependent solely on a confession but may
also be by evidence.
REFERENCE

1. USIM LIBRARY (2022, June 14)