RECENTLY there is a judgement made by the Magistrate Court Johor Bahru regarding the case that is better known as “Basikal Lajak”, which had raised a different view of the Malaysian society.
The fact of this case is a female driver 26 years of age who was convicted with a charge of reckless driving that resulted in the death of eight cyclists in Jalan Lingkaran Dalam, Johor Bahru around 3.20 am on Feb 18, 2017.
On Oct 28, 2019, the Magistrate Court was held to acquit and discharge the driver for the charge of causing death by reckless or dangerous driving under the Section 41(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 as the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt for the case.
On Oct 12, 2021, the prosecution filed an appeal against Magistrate Court’s decision on the acquittal and discharge of the driver.
There are two different views regarding this matter whereby part of the society agrees the judgement held by the Magistrate Court to acquit the driver from the charges.
On the flipside, some people opined that driver should be responsible for the death of eight cyclists, questioning on why the court acquitted and the discharged the driver despite her causing the deaths of eight teenagers.
This puts in question whether the decision of Magistrate Court regarding this case is fair and justified or not and whether the driver or the teenagers themselves should be held responsible in this case.
From the perspective of law, there are few approaches taken by the philosophy of law to define the meaning and role of law.
One of this is legal positivism.
Legal positivism is the philosophy of law that is applied by the positivists where they are of the view that the law is a command of a sovereign backed by a sanction.
It means that the law created by the Government must be followed by the citizens and sanctions will be imposed if the citizens disobey the law.
In this case, the court ruled that the driver did not violate Section 41(1) of Road of Transport Act as she did not drive over the speed limit and neither was she driving under the influence of alcohol.
She was also not using her phone while driving and neither was she not using a car seatbelt which will cause the death of the cyclists involved.
It is undeniable that the cyclists died in the accident involving the driver.
However, as the victims were riding modified bicycles on the highway in the middle of the night, they should be aware that their action had put themselves in danger.
Thus, they should be responsible for the consequences of their actions, be it injury or death.
If we referred to the opinion of legal positivism, the judgement of the Magistrate Court in the case of “Basikal Lajak” is fair and justified as it was held according to the law made by the Government, which is not biased to anyone.
Hence, there is no doubt that the Magistrate Court’s decision to acquit and discharge the driver was the right one, since she was engaged in reckless or dangerous driving under Section 41(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 and she had obeyed the law.
Moreover, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Everybody needs to obey the law, and if they don’t, they will be punished.
In a nutshell, the law exists to protect the society’s interests.
From the perspective of the eight cyclists who died that night, it might be unfair to them and their families as they were the victims.
Eight teenagers died that night – this cannot be refuted, but neither can the fact that they were riding modified bicycles on the highway in the middle of the night which posed a danger not only to themselves but to other road users as well.
People should bear the consequences of their actions.
In this case, the driver did not break any rules while driving and thus it would be unfair and unreasonable if she had to take responsibility for the deaths of the cyclists.
Thus, the judgement in the “Basikal Lajak” case is fair and reasonable not only from the perspective of the law but also for both parties involved. – Nov 15, 2021
Juan Sing Ru is a third-year law student at National University Malaysia (UKM), and Dr Nabeel Mahdi Althabhawi teaches law at the same university.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
