Then came election night, with Harvey changing into the costume in the leisure centre showers — just in time to meet May as the candidates heard how they had performed. Online interest was enormous, with offers coming in from around the world. This ultimately ended with Harvey, who once worked with Armando Iannucci on the Time Trumpet series, making contact with Todd Durham, the film-maker behind the original Gremloids.
Initially friendly conversations later broke down, with the US film director asserting his control over his previously forgotten creation. Harvey had attracted hundreds of thousands of followers to the Twitter account and felt he had some degree of moral ownership over how the character had developed.
Durham — who also created the successful Hotel Transylvania franchise — said the crowdfunded money had been returned. Harvey, who is now focus ing on his own comedy career , decided to speak out after the crowdfunder showed how candidates could be potentially funded and controlled from abroad, with people believing they were still backing the same person from the election.
Despite the subsequent legal issues, he enjoyed the experience. Facebook Twitter Pinterest. Topics Politics. Thus, after Muhammed Hassan , the practice of the prosecution was to choose either to invoke the presumption under s. The presumption of trafficking under s. Good days here did last quite some time, albeit only for 15 years.
The legislative intent was clearly enunciated at the second reading of the Bill in the Dewan Rakyat,  viz. The amendment sought to address the problem where the prosecution was given a more difficult task to succeed in proving drug trafficking cases due to the downfall of the double presumptions approach, purporting to obviate the dilemma faced by the prosecution.
The amendment Act was duly passed. Therefore, the coming into force of the amendment Act on 14 February brought with it a revival of the double presumptions approach previously scotched by Muhammed Hassan. The tide hence began to turn after the amendment and the reception of the double presumptions approach was fast in our local courts. Worse, we could also see the returning application of the use of double presumptions after the amendment.
In PP v Hamid Shamsi Kavishashi ,  the accused was deemed to be in possession of the drugs because the drugs were in his custody and control. This further triggered the statutory presumption of trafficking as provided in s.
Since no evidence in rebuttal was adduced by the accused, the presumption was not rebutted. Applying double presumptions, the Court of Appeal substituted the acquittal with an order that the accused be convicted of the trafficking charge.
The learned counsel for the accused had put forth cogent arguments that such double presumptions may run foul against Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution, for it is in affront to the principle of the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, thus causing the accused to be deemed guilty indiscriminately. The High Court disagreed and held that in cases where presumption is applicable, the prosecution still needed to prove all the facts to invoke the presumption of the offence, and it was not to the extent of the accused proving his innocence.
Besides, such presumption, once triggered, still reserved for the accused a fair right to provide justification in their defence on the balance of probabilities. Zulkifli Bakar J in his judgment opined that the presumption was not against any fundamental rights provided under Article 5 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution. He reasoned that this burden was understandably higher to the accused because the statute involved is concerned with an issue of social concern, since it causes public danger due to the negative effect of drug abuse.
Therefore, the High Court ruled that the invocation of presumptions in proving drug trafficking offence was allowed. The above cases and numerous others illustrate the aftermath of the amendment of S. Some courts started to rigidly apply the double presumptions. Thus, before Alma Nudo Atenza , what we could foresee was the application of double presumptions to be the standard practice in drug cases. The 1st Appeal 1.
Facts of the Case In the 1st appeal, the 1st appellant, a Filipino national, travelled from Hong Kong to Malaysia by flight. Upon her arrival at Kuala Lumpur International Airport KLIA , the customs and police officers conducted a physical examination of the contents of her bag. Nine packages of handbags wrapped in clear plastic were identified and a total of 36 packages, containing crystalline substance tested positive for methamphetamine, were recovered from the nine handbags.
The Chemistry Department analysed and confirmed that the substance contained in total It was also found that there was evidence to indicate the knowledge of the 1st appellant of the drugs she was carrying in the bag, based on how the drugs were carefully and cunningly concealed in the inner layers of the handbags, packed as if they were new and placed together with other items similarly packed.
The 1st appellant argued that she was offered an assignment to carry diamonds from Hong Kong to Malaysia and another checked in the bag for her.
The defence of innocent carrier argued was not accepted by the court for no one would carry diamonds of colossal value in an unlocked checked-in bag. There were obvious circumstances which could have aroused the suspicion of the 1st appellant on what she was carrying yet she ignored those facts. Applying the principle of wilful blindness, the 1st appellant was taken to know that she was carrying drugs. Hence, she was convicted and sentenced to death.
Decision of the Court of Appeal Among others, the 1st appellant appealed on the constitutionality on the use of double presumptions. On this issue, the Court of Appeal  noted that despite the invocation of the presumptions, the prosecution was still required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
It was incumbent upon them to adduce positive evidence of the relevant facts before the presumption could be invoked.
Mike faces off with two of the most controversial legal questions that STARCORE legal, the High Council and the United States Supreme Court have ever had to. Teen pop star Justin Bieber, facing charges in the United States and Canada, had pot and anti-anxiety medication in his system when arrested.
Thus, since the opportunity to rebut the presumption was not taken away, the rights of the defence were well maintained. Hence, the Court of Appeal held that the use of double presumptions was not unconstitutional and did not violate the presumption of innocence. The 2nd Appeal 1.
Upon her arrival at KLIA, he lodged a complaint regarding the loss of the bag to the airport authorities. Later, the bag arrived at KLIA and was handed over to the Lost and Found section and delivery was arranged to send the bag to the 2nd appellant. However, during the scanning process, a suspicious item was found inside the bag. Subsequently, white powder was identified, and after analysis, the powder was confirmed to contain Thus, the prosecution only needed to prove that the 2nd appellant had the custody and control over the bag in order for him to be presumed to have possession and knowledge of the dangerous drug unless proven otherwise.
The trial judge was satisfied that the elements of custody and control were proven. Thus, s. The double presumptions then became operative.
Conversely, the prosecution may rely on the presumption under s. Tobin does not have a law degree. Vicky Peterwald: Rebel. The ship was christened on 11 November and set sail from there. The brothers allegedly used another man's identity to buy the car.
It was ruled that the 2nd appellant was presumed to be trafficking the drugs as s. Accordingly, she was found guilty and sentenced to death. Decision of the Court of Appeal The 2nd appellant appealed on the ground that the learned trial judge had erred in law and fact in finding custody and control. The use of double presumptions was, however, not discussed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as it agreed with the finding of the High Court. It emphasised that there was a failure to cast reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case or to rebut the presumption of knowledge on the balance of probabilities.
Since the Federal Court in Muhammed Hassan had already exercised its judicial power to declare that using double presumptions was harsh, oppressive and thus impermissible, Parliament could not interfere by amending the DDA to legalise what had been declared illegal. That earlier decision of the court will then become unenforceable for the interpretation of the newly amended law.
Nevertheless, the decision itself which led to the amendment is not affected. Thus, the Federal Court ruled that s. The finality of the decision in that case in respect of the rights and liabilities of the parties was unaffected. Thus, such an amendment was a permissible exercise of legislative power and did not encroach into the realm of judicial power. To allow any enacted law, however arbitrary, unfair, or unjust, to deprive the right under Article 5 would be condoning the rule by law instead.
Put simply, the presumption of innocence is not absolute but subject to implied limitations, as a degree of flexibility is required to strike a balance between the public interest and the right of an accused person. Yet, exclusion of such principle will not be rendered constitutionally valid if it would subvert the very purpose of the entrenchment of the presumption of innocence in the FC. To determine whether the presumption of innocence is rightfully circumvented, the proportionality test will come into the picture to strike the appropriate balance between the competing interests of an accused and the State.
The presumption of innocence is not absolute. The substance and effect of the presumption must be reasonable and not greater than necessary.