Is anyone above the law? The legal jargon is "legal immunity". Heads of States are traditionally immune to any legal action. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic agents properly accredited to a country are in general immune to any criminal, civil or administrative jurisdiction of the host country. A "naughty" diplomat can only be prosecuted or sued if his immunity is waived by the sending country. Otherwise the only real action is to request for him to be removed. Some years back, a local bank was unable to recover credit card debts incurred by a foreign diplomat despite going to court because of this immunity. Free money!
The law also excludes a child under 7 from criminal liability. Children between 7 and12 can only be liable if he has "attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct". The malay word for the rather convoluted language would be "berakal". If he is "berakal" then he is criminally liable.
Does this mean it is ok if you ask your little 6 year old nephew to steal a phone from Incomm? After all Papalaw says there is no offence. Well, shame on you. He cannot be charged but under the law you can be charged for instigating the offence. It is as if you are stealing the phone yourself. Leave that kid alone and teach him good things instead!
1 comment:
The true maxim is "the king or crown can do no wrong". In the common law, it traces its origin in the UK. Since the courts were created by the King for the protection for the protection of his subjects the argument goes that the King or the crown should be immune from the institution he created. However this principle nowadays in many common law jurisdictions have somehow been amended. In Malaysia for instance, the King or the Agung is not immune in his private capacity. This means as an example he cannot just go into the Porche dealership and takes whatever car he wishes without paying for it.
Post a Comment