Azrul Hasyimi & Co

On the court record

The firm's record illustrates the problem of causation where death follows an attack after a long interval and an intervening complication, and the requirement of a caveatable interest to sustain a private caveat under section 327 of the National Land Code.

Azrul Hasyimi & Co appears in the corpus as counsel in criminal and liberty litigation, together with land work, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) largely in Bahasa Malaysia.

One matter concerned unlawful detention. Acting for the plaintiff, the firm appeared where the claim sought compensation (pampasan) arising from an allegedly wrongful detention under a detention order made under section 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, in conjunction with an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court, testing the lawfulness of the executive's deprivation of the plaintiff's liberty.

In a serious criminal matter, argued in Malay, the firm acted for the respondent where the prosecution appealed against an acquittal. The case raised a question of causation under section 304(a) of the Penal Code, the death having occurred more than sixteen months after an attack, so that the court had to consider whether the chain of causation was directly proven or whether a post-attack complication, meningitis, had broken it. The matter also engaged the offence of causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon under section 326 of the Penal Code, arising from an attack with a parang, and the doctrine of common intention under section 34, in particular whether mere presence at the scene with a weapon and passive assent sufficed, or whether a prior meeting of minds had to be shown.

In land work the firm acted for the defendant in an application to remove a private caveat under section 327 of the National Land Code, where the successful bidder at an auction contended that the caveator had no caveatable interest, holding a mere power of attorney given after the land had been auctioned, and that the bidder was an aggrieved person entitled to remove the caveat. The firm's record combines criminal and liberty advocacy with land litigation.