马来西亚毒品案件的尿样采集和逮捕程序

Q3 Social Sciences
Muhamad Helmi Md Said, Anusha Asokakumar, Bong Jia Er, Nurul Arwani Zafirah Biamin, Muhammad Khabir Hariz A Rahim, Nurin Athirah Mohd Alam Shah, Awathif Azman
{"title":"马来西亚毒品案件的尿样采集和逮捕程序","authors":"Muhamad Helmi Md Said, Anusha Asokakumar, Bong Jia Er, Nurul Arwani Zafirah Biamin, Muhammad Khabir Hariz A Rahim, Nurin Athirah Mohd Alam Shah, Awathif Azman","doi":"10.32890/uumjls2022.13.1.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research focuses on the position of the relevant procedures concerning an arrest with regards to drug cases in Malaysia. There are three relevant acts that provide for the procedures for arrest concerning drug related cases in Malaysia. They are the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA1952), the Criminal Procedure Code and the Drugs Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 (1983 Act). However, there are conflicts between the application and the interpretation of the relevant provisions under each of these Acts by itself. Hence, this article outlines three objectives ie.: (i) to identify the various provisions relating to drug cases in Malaysia; (ii) to identify and analyse the position and the interpretation of the Malaysian criminal procedure law with regards an arrest concerning drug related cases; and (iii) to suggest improvements that can be made to the law governing an arrest relating to drug cases in Malaysia. In order to achieve these objectives, the research used a qualitative approach with pure legal method as statutes and legal cases would be used as primary source. The research found that that the courts cannot come to a conclusion on whether one or two bottles of urine sample is needed for an examination. This research also found that under the 1983 Act, there have been no recent cases that discussed on the procedures for arrest as well as the number of urine samples that needed to be collected as most of the recent cases were to be tried under the DDA 1952. Finally, there are conflicts in determining the manner of arrest relating to drugs cases under the DDA 1952. Thus, this research suggests an amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The issue of how many bottles of urine samples that need to be collected as well as the issue of whether the MOH Guidelines and IGSO have the relevant force of law must be addressed in this amendment. Next, this research also suggests that the 1983 Act be revised as well as updated due to the arising issues as mentioned earlier.","PeriodicalId":37075,"journal":{"name":"UUM Journal of Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE PROCEDURES FOR THE COLLECTION OF URINE SAMPLES AND ARREST WITH REGARDS TO DRUG CASES IN MALAYSIA\",\"authors\":\"Muhamad Helmi Md Said, Anusha Asokakumar, Bong Jia Er, Nurul Arwani Zafirah Biamin, Muhammad Khabir Hariz A Rahim, Nurin Athirah Mohd Alam Shah, Awathif Azman\",\"doi\":\"10.32890/uumjls2022.13.1.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This research focuses on the position of the relevant procedures concerning an arrest with regards to drug cases in Malaysia. There are three relevant acts that provide for the procedures for arrest concerning drug related cases in Malaysia. They are the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA1952), the Criminal Procedure Code and the Drugs Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 (1983 Act). However, there are conflicts between the application and the interpretation of the relevant provisions under each of these Acts by itself. Hence, this article outlines three objectives ie.: (i) to identify the various provisions relating to drug cases in Malaysia; (ii) to identify and analyse the position and the interpretation of the Malaysian criminal procedure law with regards an arrest concerning drug related cases; and (iii) to suggest improvements that can be made to the law governing an arrest relating to drug cases in Malaysia. In order to achieve these objectives, the research used a qualitative approach with pure legal method as statutes and legal cases would be used as primary source. The research found that that the courts cannot come to a conclusion on whether one or two bottles of urine sample is needed for an examination. This research also found that under the 1983 Act, there have been no recent cases that discussed on the procedures for arrest as well as the number of urine samples that needed to be collected as most of the recent cases were to be tried under the DDA 1952. Finally, there are conflicts in determining the manner of arrest relating to drugs cases under the DDA 1952. Thus, this research suggests an amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The issue of how many bottles of urine samples that need to be collected as well as the issue of whether the MOH Guidelines and IGSO have the relevant force of law must be addressed in this amendment. Next, this research also suggests that the 1983 Act be revised as well as updated due to the arising issues as mentioned earlier.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37075,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"UUM Journal of Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"UUM Journal of Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2022.13.1.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UUM Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2022.13.1.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项研究的重点是马来西亚关于毒品案件逮捕的相关程序的立场。马来西亚有三项相关法令规定了与毒品有关案件的逮捕程序。它们是《1952年危险药物法》(DDA1952)、《刑事诉讼法》和《1983年毒品依赖者(治疗和康复)法》(1983年法案)。然而,这些法案中每一项相关条款的适用和解释本身存在冲突。因此,本条概述了三个目标,即:(一)确定与马来西亚毒品案件有关的各种规定;二查明和分析马来西亚刑事诉讼法对涉及毒品案件的逮捕的立场和解释;以及(三)建议可以改进马来西亚关于毒品案件逮捕的法律。为了实现这些目标,研究采用了纯法律方法的定性方法,因为法规和法律案例将被用作主要来源。研究发现,法院无法就是否需要一瓶或两瓶尿样进行检查得出结论。这项研究还发现,根据1983年的法令,最近没有讨论逮捕程序以及需要收集的尿液样本数量的案件,因为最近的大多数案件都是根据1952年的DDA进行审判的。最后,根据1952年《毒品和犯罪问题办公室法》,在确定与毒品案件有关的逮捕方式方面存在冲突。因此,这项研究建议对1952年《危险药物法》进行修正。本修正案必须解决需要收集多少瓶尿液样本的问题,以及卫生部指南和政府间组织标准是否具有相关法律效力的问题。接下来,这项研究还建议,由于前面提到的问题,1983年法案应该进行修订和更新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
THE PROCEDURES FOR THE COLLECTION OF URINE SAMPLES AND ARREST WITH REGARDS TO DRUG CASES IN MALAYSIA
This research focuses on the position of the relevant procedures concerning an arrest with regards to drug cases in Malaysia. There are three relevant acts that provide for the procedures for arrest concerning drug related cases in Malaysia. They are the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA1952), the Criminal Procedure Code and the Drugs Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 (1983 Act). However, there are conflicts between the application and the interpretation of the relevant provisions under each of these Acts by itself. Hence, this article outlines three objectives ie.: (i) to identify the various provisions relating to drug cases in Malaysia; (ii) to identify and analyse the position and the interpretation of the Malaysian criminal procedure law with regards an arrest concerning drug related cases; and (iii) to suggest improvements that can be made to the law governing an arrest relating to drug cases in Malaysia. In order to achieve these objectives, the research used a qualitative approach with pure legal method as statutes and legal cases would be used as primary source. The research found that that the courts cannot come to a conclusion on whether one or two bottles of urine sample is needed for an examination. This research also found that under the 1983 Act, there have been no recent cases that discussed on the procedures for arrest as well as the number of urine samples that needed to be collected as most of the recent cases were to be tried under the DDA 1952. Finally, there are conflicts in determining the manner of arrest relating to drugs cases under the DDA 1952. Thus, this research suggests an amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The issue of how many bottles of urine samples that need to be collected as well as the issue of whether the MOH Guidelines and IGSO have the relevant force of law must be addressed in this amendment. Next, this research also suggests that the 1983 Act be revised as well as updated due to the arising issues as mentioned earlier.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
UUM Journal of Legal Studies
UUM Journal of Legal Studies Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信