Shafiq Bin Hasim

On the court record

Engages the constitutional limits on repeated prosecution under Article 7(2) and section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and sentencing for terrorism offences under the Penal Code including prior convictions as aggravation.

Shafiq Bin Hasim appears in this corpus as counsel for the prosecution, in both a constitutional criminal appeal and a sentencing matter. In the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) he acted in appeals arising from a decision of the High Court at Penang dismissing applications to strike out criminal charges. The central questions were constitutional and procedural: whether the institution of a second proceeding was prohibited by Article 7(2) of the Federal Constitution — the protection against double jeopardy — and by section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and whether the case before the court fell within those provisions. That inquiry requires the court to decide whether a fresh prosecution repeats one the accused has already faced, so as to be constitutionally barred, or is properly distinct.

In the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) he appeared as counsel for the prosecution in a sentencing matter following a plea of guilty. The charges were under sections 130J(1)(a) and 130JB(1)(a) of the Penal Code, provisions within the chapter addressing offences relating to terrorism. The accused had pleaded guilty before trial, and the contest was over the appropriate sentence: the prosecution advanced factors in aggravation ("hujahan pemberat TPR"), pointing out that the accused was not a first offender ("bukan pesalah kali pertama") but had a record of prior convictions for offences under section 130JB(1)(a) of the Penal Code. The court weighed those aggravating features, together with sentencing trends, in determining the custodial term.

Across these matters, Shafiq Bin Hasim's role as prosecuting counsel engaged the constitutional limits on repeated prosecution under Article 7(2) and section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the principles of sentencing for serious offences under the terrorism provisions of the Penal Code, including the treatment of prior convictions as an aggravating factor. The strike-out appeals in particular required the court to decide whether a fresh prosecution repeated a proceeding the accused had already faced, so as to be constitutionally barred, or was properly distinct — a question that goes directly to the protection the Constitution affords against being placed twice in jeopardy for the same offence.