Judicial commissioner Amirudin Abd Rahman said the lower courts should not deal with criminal cases “mechanically”.

“Magistrates must always play a role in ensuring the accused’s rights and liberties are ultimately protected,” he said in his judgment to quash a “double conviction” drug case.

In the case involving a drug offender, Adli Elaiyaraja Abdullah, the man was first charged on Feb 11 with self-administering methamphetamine. He pleaded guilty to the charge under Section 15(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act before the Jawi magistrates’ court.

The court fined Adli RM1,500 in default two months’ imprisonment and ordered him to undergo two years of supervision from Feb 11. He paid the fine.

However, one month later on March 25, Adli was again hauled up to court to face the same charge.

The magistrate, who heard Adli’s first charge, again fined him RM1,500 in default two months’ jail after Adli pleaded guilty and ordered him to be placed under two years’ supervision.

“Upon scrutiny of the records of proceedings, it is pertinently clear and incontestable that he had been charged twice with the same offence,” Amirudin said.

“However simple it may sound, the occurrence of double jeopardy is a grave and forbidding situation and must not be looked upon lightly,” he said, adding that “almost all” jurisdictions prevent the practice.

Exercise powers to prosecute fairly, judge tells public prosecutor

Amirudin also reminded the public prosecutor (PP) to always exercise his powers conscientiously and to ensure prosecution is done fairly.

“If the PP or his deputies conduct the case attentively and diligently, this oversight (double jeopardy) is preventable,” he said.

He also reminded lawyers to act in the best interest of the accused and to give them legal advice accordingly.

Adli was represented by a lawyer from the National Legal Aid Foundation on both occasions.

However, when he was charged the second time, the lawyer did not raise the fact that Adli was already charged with the same offence one month earlier.

“None of them (magistrate, deputy public prosecutor or lawyer) were aware that the same person was charged with the same offence a month ago,” said Amirudin.

“I must add that lawyers providing legal aid should play a more active role and not just record the accused person’s particulars for mitigation purposes.

“It is unfair to put the fault on the accused (Adli) to raise the double jeopardy rule. This rule is alien to those outside the legal fraternity,” he said.