Article 10 : Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Association
Art 10(1)(b): Does the Police have power to regulate public assembly
The problem whereby police officers have not just disallowed or restrict public assemblies, even charging people for such incidents has happened frequently. The intentions of the police officers to do so is to ensure public safety and order as clearly stated in section 10(2)(b) of the Federal Constitution, however, such actions & restrictions of the Police officers imposed by the Police Act 1967 can sometimes be seen as too restrictive, unreasonable and not in line with the principle of the Criminal law.
One example for such a case is Cheah Beng Poh v & Ors v Pendakwa Raya. In the case, 42 lawyers were charged for unlawful assembly under section 27(5) of the Police Act 1967 on June 1982. Section 27(5) of the Act states that an assembly or meeting which takes place without license from the police shall be deemed unlawful. In the first place, the intentions of the lawyers were to hold a simple gathering with no intention of being an assembly.
In the case of Datuk Yong Teck Lee vs Public Prosecutor & Anor, it was almost similar, where section 27 was argued to be ultra vires the Federal Constitution, this time clauses (2), (5) & (8) where clause (2) states that the applicant for a license to assemble must satisfy the police officer to not be prejudicial to the security. The section were compared to section 141 of the Penal Code and section 5(1)(a) of the Public Order Act to be more prohibitive & not restrictive in nature.
In the end, both appeals are dismissed & that the sections stated were lawful, however, in April 2012, it was repealed and replaced by Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 where it restricts assembly without the involvement of the police to make it more restrictive.
One example for such a case is Cheah Beng Poh v & Ors v Pendakwa Raya. In the case, 42 lawyers were charged for unlawful assembly under section 27(5) of the Police Act 1967 on June 1982. Section 27(5) of the Act states that an assembly or meeting which takes place without license from the police shall be deemed unlawful. In the first place, the intentions of the lawyers were to hold a simple gathering with no intention of being an assembly.
In the case of Datuk Yong Teck Lee vs Public Prosecutor & Anor, it was almost similar, where section 27 was argued to be ultra vires the Federal Constitution, this time clauses (2), (5) & (8) where clause (2) states that the applicant for a license to assemble must satisfy the police officer to not be prejudicial to the security. The section were compared to section 141 of the Penal Code and section 5(1)(a) of the Public Order Act to be more prohibitive & not restrictive in nature.
In the end, both appeals are dismissed & that the sections stated were lawful, however, in April 2012, it was repealed and replaced by Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 where it restricts assembly without the involvement of the police to make it more restrictive.