- 48 Lim Minyi & Chia Peak Hwa 82.5
- 44 Izyan Syafinaz bt Ahmad Haspan & Jaslina bt Tanzil 81
- 22 Kesinee Aiyalu a/p Parthasarathee & Andrew Yeoh Teck Keong 81
- 7 Tan Choon Hong & Chong Xianci 81
- 3 Wong Lien Lien & Toh Teng Teng 78
- 23 Gan Su Mui & Spring Lim Shu Zhen 77
- 12 Seah Song Yan & Chu Chai Tong 77
- 39 Tan Zher Rhu & Yee Chew Wei 76.5
- 34 Shazwani bt Jalil & Safia bt Ilham 76.5
- 45 Eolanda Yeo Jin Huay & Jerah Teoh Yong Qiang 76
- 49 Sarra Abdul Rahman& Nur Afiqah bt Zakaria 76
- 41 Toh Hui Ling & Cheong Siow Wei 75.5
- 56 Muhammad b Izham & Atikah bt Mohamed Rosli 75
- 16 Mohamad Ammar Redzuan& Rozarina bt Rosli 75
- 25 Collin Arvind Andrew & Shobana a/p A. Padmanathan 73
- 13 Sathiesh K. Purushothaman & Suriakala Sivalingam 72.5
- 10 Shasha a/p Kummar & Sheenalini a/p Sundaram 72
- 40 Lim Wei Loon & Tay Soon Chuan 72
- 62 Mohamad Arif b jamani & Fadlin Izreen bt Mustafar 71.25
- 54 Kalyani a/p Vengada Chalam & Shangeetha a/p Moorthy 71
- 55 Foong Chee Chong & Lee Wen Hie 71
- 30Bindusha a/p Surendrakumar & Asra Nur Syahadah bt Abdul Rashid 70
- 31 Adrian Tay Kien Chong & Koh Shing Ru 69.5
- 59Mohamad Zairin b Mohamad Zin & Muhammad Ammar Al-Haq b Ahmad 69
- 8 Siti Solehah bt Daud & Nurul Iliana bt Ahmad Hasnin 68.75
- 67 Farhan Aizuddin b Md Paudzai & Nor Amirruddin b Nordin 67
- 27 Chow Yee Fan & Lim Keat Seong 64.5
- 47 Khairul Fisyah bt Mohd Fisol & Azie Farhana bt Abu Zarin 62.5
- 64 Vijayandra Kumar a/l Maruthamuttu & Ahmad Hanafi b Lop Ahmad 62
- 37 Emile Ezra b Md Hussain & Dayang Nuratiqah Diyanah bt Awang Saifuddin 62
- 5 Teo Ju Li & Rema Shangeri Mohanaraj 58.5
- 60 Amrita Kaur a/p Gucharan & Rajambal a/p Suparamenium 54.5
- 15 Mohammad Khairol b Khalid & Wan Adhila Wan Leeh 53.4
- 63 Tan Yook Siang & Nalini a/p Gopalkrishanan 39.5
- 65 Philip Lee Kar Hing & Diana Sulamazra bt Abdul Rahman 24
- 69 exparte
Mar 29, 2009
Preliminary Rounds Team Ranking (BM)
Ranking/Team No/ Oralists/ Total Score
Preliminary Rounds Team Ranking (BI)
Ranking/Team No/ Oralists/ Total Score
- 38 Vooi Weng Cheong Nick & Lai Yee Lee 83
- 17 Leong Zhi Hong & Lee Chong Hong 81
- 66 Melanie Tan & Janardhane a/p Muniandy 80
- 68 Sharifah Tasnim bt Syed Ahmad & Mohammad Syamil bin Sazali @ Arifin 80
- 28 Ching Kuan Fang & Neo Han Ying 78.5
- 43 Catherine Ong Wei Ying & Lau Shin Yee 78.5
- 29 Calvin Chua & Lee Ren Jie 78.5
- 11 Selwester Michael Dass & R. Kanthan a/l Ragunathan 78
- 9 Siti Khadijah bt Zainal Rashid & Amirah Tasnim bt Yaakob 77.5
- 42 Amirul Ridzuan b Hanif & Nur Diyana bt Ahmad Fauzi 75
- 2 Yew Yuen Wah & Yap Ching Heong 74.25
- 50 Siti Suraya bt Abd Razak & Muhammad Ali Redha Bin Ahmad Rashidi 73
- 35 Nanthakumar a/l Gohbal & Danaindran a/l Rajendran 73
- 51 Tan Yoong Koon & Gan Song Zhou 69
- 33 Yogasheelan a/l Samuagam & Shangkarananda a/l Kanan 69
- 6 Tan Yen Lin & Gan Poh Chin 69
- 46 Ummu Sakinah bt Mohd Zawawi & Aizat Zamir b Ismail 68
- 20 Latania John Masabal & Noorlydia Ahmad 67
- 14 Nico Langgie Ngumbang & Yong Yen Lii 67
- 4 Toby Chiang Pang Sheng & Chuah Jie Ni 66.75
- 58 Nur Shazwina bt Nordin & Nurul Adlin bt Nazri 66.75
- 52 Loh Shieh Mei & Ng Nyet Kheng 66
- 24 Darmendira Kumar a/l T Anandan & Gan Ca Rol 66
- 1 Norsyafiqa bt Mazuki & Aidil Ratna Edorra bt Suhaimin 65
- 18 Lee Cincee & Eng Sok Yin 65
- 32 Shobna a/p Sivaraman & Sushma Tiwaria/p Karam Shankar 63.5
- 19 Lee Chiw Poh & Ooi Chee Kin 63
- 53 Heng Jia Lian & Lim Hooi Nee 61
- 36 Nur Farezza bt Muhamad Khairuddin & Mohamed Faiq Azim b Mohamed Asri 59.5
- 26 Chuah Chen Yean & Cheong Sing Yee 59
- 57 Nur Azuren bt Mohd Othman & Nur Nadia bt Hj Ramli 52.5
- 61Prashant Dev Nair a/l Bala Chandran & Mohammed Fareez b Mohammed Salleh 50
- 21 0 0 0 exparte
- 70 0 0 0 exparte
Submission and exchange of memorials
Date: 30 March 2009
Time: 11- 12pm
Venue: In front of FSER4009
Please prepare five (5) hard copies of the same Memorial.
Four (4) hard copies are required to be submitted to the Head of Administrator and one (1) hard copy will be the team’s copy.
Time: 11- 12pm
Venue: In front of FSER4009
Please prepare five (5) hard copies of the same Memorial.
Four (4) hard copies are required to be submitted to the Head of Administrator and one (1) hard copy will be the team’s copy.
Mar 28, 2009
FINAL Problem Clarification
It is applicable to both BM & Eng.:-
" 4. the trial judge failed to take into account the provisions of s. 304 of the Penal Code for causing death by negligence which does not amount to murder or manslaughter ."
This is a ground of appeal. Puffina was sentenced under s.304PC. So she is appealing that the the Judge erred in using s. 304 without considering her defence.
" 4. the trial judge failed to take into account the provisions of s. 304 of the Penal Code for causing death by negligence which does not amount to murder or manslaughter ."
This is a ground of appeal. Puffina was sentenced under s.304PC. So she is appealing that the the Judge erred in using s. 304 without considering her defence.
Mar 18, 2009
Release of Problem Clarifications- English
Team 17
1. Is the English language version of question same with the Malay language version and tie each other?
Separate
2. Is there any typo error in the 4th ground of appeal? Is it section 304A instead of
section 304?
s. 304
3. What did Rokok consent to as stated in the 2nd ground of appeal?
Read the question.
4. What is the meaning of “considerable reluctance”?
Look up the dictionary
5. Why Puffina wanted to buy cider? Is it to be used in the course of injecting heroin?
Facts silent. Do your own research.
6. What is considered as ‘contaminated’?
“ The heroin was in fact contaminated……..” look up dictionary.
7. What are the ingredients of the contaminated heroin?
Facts silent.
8. Did Puffina know that the heroin was contaminated?
Facts silent.
9. Did Rokok know that the heroin was contaminated?
Facts silent.
10. Did Dan know that the heroin was contaminated?
Facts silent.
11. Did Puffina know that the contaminated heroin was danger to people?
Facts silent.
12. Did Rokok know that the contaminated heroin was danger to people?
Facts silent.
13. Did Dan know that the contaminated heroin was danger to people?
Facts silent.
14. Whether Pufina and Rokok know that the contaminated heroin will kill?
Facts silent.
15. Is there any other heroin in Puffina’s house while the incident occured?
Facts silent.
16. Did Rokok possess any other heroin with him at that particular time?
Facts silent.
17. Is the injection of the contaminated heroin the sole cause of death?
Read the question.
18. What is the exact time of Rokok’s death? Few hours after Puffina went out? Or…
Facts silent
19. Who is the first person reporting Rokok’s death to the police?
Facts silent
20. Despite of buying the cider, why did Puffina leave the apartment?
Facts silent
21. Did Puffina go home after she bought cider and did she find the death of Rokok? What she had done later?
Facts silent
22. Did Rokok take any other medicine or specific foods before he injected the
contaminated heroin?
Facts silent
23. Was the syringe left by Puffina filled with the contaminated heroin provided by Dan?
Read the question.
24. Was the any other syringe in the apartment which can be obtained by Rokok?
Facts silent. Read the question.
25. What was the mental condition of Rokok when he injected the heroin?
Read the question.
26. Did Dan know that the heroin provided to Puffina was going to be given to Rokok?
Read the question
27. How long did Rokok and Puffina addicted to heroin?
Facts silent
28. Was that the first time where Rokok injected himself with contaminated heroin?
Read the question.
29. Where did they (Rokok and Puffina) usually taking the drugs?
Facts silent
30. Which part of body did Rokok inject the contaminated heroin?
Facts silent
Team 66
1. What is the nature of Puffina and Rokok’s relationship, before and after Rokok met Setia?
As given in the question.
2.How long have both Puffina and Rokok been drug (heroin) addicts?
Read the question.
3. What are Puffina’s knowledge, conscience and/or awareness towards the contamination of the so-called ‘good batch of heroin’?
Facts silent.
4.In the phrase, “The heroin was in fact contaminated and Rokok died as a result”, what does it mean by the word “in fact”? Does it mean that Puffina know something about the contamination?
Look up dictionary for meaning of “in fact”
5. What was the mental state of both Puffina and Rokok when they met up for the ‘one last trip’ at Puffina’s flat? Were they sober or vice versa?
As per given facts.
6.What was Rokok’s mental state when Puffina left the flat and before he was overwhelmed by the sight of the heroin?
As per given facts.
7.If Puffina really wanted to go on the ‘trip’ together with Rokok, why did she leave Rokok to inject the heroin on his own? Why Puffina did not stay and inject together then after that go out to buy the cider?
Make your submission.
8.What was the mode and method of persuasion used by Puffina towards Rokok?
As per given facts.
9.In the phrase “Puffina suggested that Rokok go on ‘one last trip’ with her”, what does Puffina mean by “one last trip”?
As understood in ordinary English.
10.Was there any conspiracy involved between Puffina and her brother, the heroin supplier, Dan?
Facts silent.
Team 68
1. How was the drug in question contaminated?
Facts silent
2. In what form did Dan supply Puffina the heroin?
In a form that could be injected.
3. How was the drug solution prepared? Who prepared it?
Facts silent
4. What was the drug contaminated with?
Facts silent
5. How long did Puffina leave Rokok in her apartment when she went out to buy cider?
Facts silent
6. Where did Rokok die? If he died in Puffina's apartment, when was Rokok's body discovered?
Read the question. Time - Facts silent
7. Puffina's 'parting shot' (Be a man!) was said in what manner?
Facts silent.
1. Is the English language version of question same with the Malay language version and tie each other?
Separate
2. Is there any typo error in the 4th ground of appeal? Is it section 304A instead of
section 304?
s. 304
3. What did Rokok consent to as stated in the 2nd ground of appeal?
Read the question.
4. What is the meaning of “considerable reluctance”?
Look up the dictionary
5. Why Puffina wanted to buy cider? Is it to be used in the course of injecting heroin?
Facts silent. Do your own research.
6. What is considered as ‘contaminated’?
“ The heroin was in fact contaminated……..” look up dictionary.
7. What are the ingredients of the contaminated heroin?
Facts silent.
8. Did Puffina know that the heroin was contaminated?
Facts silent.
9. Did Rokok know that the heroin was contaminated?
Facts silent.
10. Did Dan know that the heroin was contaminated?
Facts silent.
11. Did Puffina know that the contaminated heroin was danger to people?
Facts silent.
12. Did Rokok know that the contaminated heroin was danger to people?
Facts silent.
13. Did Dan know that the contaminated heroin was danger to people?
Facts silent.
14. Whether Pufina and Rokok know that the contaminated heroin will kill?
Facts silent.
15. Is there any other heroin in Puffina’s house while the incident occured?
Facts silent.
16. Did Rokok possess any other heroin with him at that particular time?
Facts silent.
17. Is the injection of the contaminated heroin the sole cause of death?
Read the question.
18. What is the exact time of Rokok’s death? Few hours after Puffina went out? Or…
Facts silent
19. Who is the first person reporting Rokok’s death to the police?
Facts silent
20. Despite of buying the cider, why did Puffina leave the apartment?
Facts silent
21. Did Puffina go home after she bought cider and did she find the death of Rokok? What she had done later?
Facts silent
22. Did Rokok take any other medicine or specific foods before he injected the
contaminated heroin?
Facts silent
23. Was the syringe left by Puffina filled with the contaminated heroin provided by Dan?
Read the question.
24. Was the any other syringe in the apartment which can be obtained by Rokok?
Facts silent. Read the question.
25. What was the mental condition of Rokok when he injected the heroin?
Read the question.
26. Did Dan know that the heroin provided to Puffina was going to be given to Rokok?
Read the question
27. How long did Rokok and Puffina addicted to heroin?
Facts silent
28. Was that the first time where Rokok injected himself with contaminated heroin?
Read the question.
29. Where did they (Rokok and Puffina) usually taking the drugs?
Facts silent
30. Which part of body did Rokok inject the contaminated heroin?
Facts silent
Team 66
1. What is the nature of Puffina and Rokok’s relationship, before and after Rokok met Setia?
As given in the question.
2.How long have both Puffina and Rokok been drug (heroin) addicts?
Read the question.
3. What are Puffina’s knowledge, conscience and/or awareness towards the contamination of the so-called ‘good batch of heroin’?
Facts silent.
4.In the phrase, “The heroin was in fact contaminated and Rokok died as a result”, what does it mean by the word “in fact”? Does it mean that Puffina know something about the contamination?
Look up dictionary for meaning of “in fact”
5. What was the mental state of both Puffina and Rokok when they met up for the ‘one last trip’ at Puffina’s flat? Were they sober or vice versa?
As per given facts.
6.What was Rokok’s mental state when Puffina left the flat and before he was overwhelmed by the sight of the heroin?
As per given facts.
7.If Puffina really wanted to go on the ‘trip’ together with Rokok, why did she leave Rokok to inject the heroin on his own? Why Puffina did not stay and inject together then after that go out to buy the cider?
Make your submission.
8.What was the mode and method of persuasion used by Puffina towards Rokok?
As per given facts.
9.In the phrase “Puffina suggested that Rokok go on ‘one last trip’ with her”, what does Puffina mean by “one last trip”?
As understood in ordinary English.
10.Was there any conspiracy involved between Puffina and her brother, the heroin supplier, Dan?
Facts silent.
Team 68
1. How was the drug in question contaminated?
Facts silent
2. In what form did Dan supply Puffina the heroin?
In a form that could be injected.
3. How was the drug solution prepared? Who prepared it?
Facts silent
4. What was the drug contaminated with?
Facts silent
5. How long did Puffina leave Rokok in her apartment when she went out to buy cider?
Facts silent
6. Where did Rokok die? If he died in Puffina's apartment, when was Rokok's body discovered?
Read the question. Time - Facts silent
7. Puffina's 'parting shot' (Be a man!) was said in what manner?
Facts silent.
Mar 17, 2009
Release of Problem Clarifications- Bahasa Melayu
Team 7
1. Adakah Puffina mengetahui bahawa dadah tersebut tercemar? ataupun adakah dia sedar akan dadah tersebut adalah berlainan?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
2. Dengan kasifikasi apakah dadah tersebut tercemar?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
3. Puffina telah keluar membeli cuka, adakah cuka tersebut berkenaan dengan penyuntikkan dadah?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta. Sila buat kajian/bacaan sendiri.
Team 22
1. Fakta-fakta kes mengatakan bahawa Rokok dan Puffina adalah penagih dadah. Berapa lamakah, dari segi tahun, Rokok boleh dikatakan sebagai seorang yang ketagih dadah?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta. Sila buat kajian/bacaan sendiri.
2. Fakta mengatakan bahawa Rokok berhenti menagih dadah. Untuk berapa lamakah beliau telah berhenti sehingga hari peninggalannya (gantikan dengan “beliau meninggal”)?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta.
3. Adakah Rokok seorang yang sensitif ataupun mudah dipengaruhi?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta.
4. Apakah jenis hubungan Rokok dan Puffina? Adakah hanya sebagai rakan untuk menagih dadah ataupun sememangnya kawan yang karib?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
5. Bagaimanakah dadah heroin tercemar,dan apakah puncanya?
Dadah pada dasarnya adalah bahan tercemar (sila rujuk dictionary)
6. Selepas Rokok menyuntik dirinya dengan dadah, kira-kira berapa lamakah ia mengambil sebelum beliau meninggal?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
7. Adakah Puffina seorang sahaja yang tinggal di flatnya?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
8. Apakah punca rasmi yang diberi oleh pembedah siasat bagi kematian Rokok?
Sila rujuk soalan
9. Adakah Rokok meninggal kerana penyuntikan dadah tercemar, ataupun sebab yang lain seperti keterlebihan dos ataupun embolisme (penyuntikan buih udara ke dalam arteri yang boleh menyebabkan strok)?
Sila rujuk soalan
10. Adakah logik untuk mengandaikan bahawa Rokok mati kerana dadah tercemar? Jikalau ya, mengapakah dadah itu tiada sebarang kesan ke atas Puffina?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
11. Adakah Puffina turut mengambil heroin bersama dengan Rokok sepertimana yang dijanjikan oleh beliau di dalam fakta kes?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
12. Apakah usia Rokok dan Puffina?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
13. Fakta mengatakan bahawa heroin di dalam penyuntik adalah dadah jenis yang bagus. Adakah ia cuma lebih memberangsangkan ataupun komposisi dadah heroin yang digunakan oleh Rokok pada hari itu suatu komposisi yang berlainan daripada dadah yang biasa di ambil olehnya?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
COMMENT : RELEVANT, TAKE NOTE ON THE TYPO ERROR (HIGHLIGHTED)
Team 44
1. Adakah pihak perayu boleh mengalihkan beban liabiliti kepada Dan sebaliknya kerana membekalkan heroin yang tercemar?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta. SIla rujuk soalan.
2. Adakah Rokok telah meninggal dunia sejurus selepas beliau menyuntik dirinya?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
3. Adakah Puffina telah mengambil langkah-langkah sewajarnya untuk menolong Rokok selepas Rokok menyuntik dirinya?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
4. Apabila Rokok menyuntik dirinya, adalah ia kali pertama beliau menyuntik sendiri?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
5. Sejak bila dan sekerap mana mereka mengambil dadah jenis heroin?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
6. Apakah kegunaan cuka di dalam kes ini? Adakah ia memainkan peranan penting dalam pengambilan dadah jenis heroin?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
7. Adakah ‘heroin itu jenis yang bagus’ tersebut berbeze daripada heroin yang mereka selalu ambil?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
8. Adakah Rokok mempunyai apa-apa penyakit yang mungkin menyumbang kepada kematiannya?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
9. Adakah Puffina mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa dadah jenis heroin tersebut telah tercemar?
Dadah sememangnya bahan tercemar. Sila rujuk dictionary.
Persoalan
Adakah alasan yang keempat iaitu:
4. Hakim perbicaraan gagal mengambilkira peruntukan seksyen 304 Kanun Jenayah kecuaian mengakibatkan kematian yang tidak termasuk di bawah membunuh atau membunuh tanpa niat.
Seksyen 304 Kanun Jenayah membincangkan tentang ‘Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. Adakah alasan keempat ini sebenarnya merujuk kepada seksyen 304A iaitu “Causing death by negligence”. Dengan ini kami memohon agar pihak berkenaan merujuk semula penggunaan seksyen ini. Segala kesulitan amat dikesali. Terima kasih.
Jawapan kepada soalan ini islah s.304 Kanun Keseksaan.
COMMENT : RELEVANT, TAKE NOTE ON THE TYPO ERROR (HIGHLIGHTED)
1. Adakah Puffina mengetahui bahawa dadah tersebut tercemar? ataupun adakah dia sedar akan dadah tersebut adalah berlainan?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
2. Dengan kasifikasi apakah dadah tersebut tercemar?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
3. Puffina telah keluar membeli cuka, adakah cuka tersebut berkenaan dengan penyuntikkan dadah?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta. Sila buat kajian/bacaan sendiri.
COMMENT : RELEVANT, TAKE NOTE ON THE TYPO ERROR (HIGHLIGHTED)
Team 22
1. Fakta-fakta kes mengatakan bahawa Rokok dan Puffina adalah penagih dadah. Berapa lamakah, dari segi tahun, Rokok boleh dikatakan sebagai seorang yang ketagih dadah?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta. Sila buat kajian/bacaan sendiri.
2. Fakta mengatakan bahawa Rokok berhenti menagih dadah. Untuk berapa lamakah beliau telah berhenti sehingga hari peninggalannya (gantikan dengan “beliau meninggal”)?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta.
3. Adakah Rokok seorang yang sensitif ataupun mudah dipengaruhi?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta.
4. Apakah jenis hubungan Rokok dan Puffina? Adakah hanya sebagai rakan untuk menagih dadah ataupun sememangnya kawan yang karib?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
5. Bagaimanakah dadah heroin tercemar,dan apakah puncanya?
Dadah pada dasarnya adalah bahan tercemar (sila rujuk dictionary)
6. Selepas Rokok menyuntik dirinya dengan dadah, kira-kira berapa lamakah ia mengambil sebelum beliau meninggal?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
7. Adakah Puffina seorang sahaja yang tinggal di flatnya?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
8. Apakah punca rasmi yang diberi oleh pembedah siasat bagi kematian Rokok?
Sila rujuk soalan
9. Adakah Rokok meninggal kerana penyuntikan dadah tercemar, ataupun sebab yang lain seperti keterlebihan dos ataupun embolisme (penyuntikan buih udara ke dalam arteri yang boleh menyebabkan strok)?
Sila rujuk soalan
10. Adakah logik untuk mengandaikan bahawa Rokok mati kerana dadah tercemar? Jikalau ya, mengapakah dadah itu tiada sebarang kesan ke atas Puffina?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
11. Adakah Puffina turut mengambil heroin bersama dengan Rokok sepertimana yang dijanjikan oleh beliau di dalam fakta kes?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
12. Apakah usia Rokok dan Puffina?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
13. Fakta mengatakan bahawa heroin di dalam penyuntik adalah dadah jenis yang bagus. Adakah ia cuma lebih memberangsangkan ataupun komposisi dadah heroin yang digunakan oleh Rokok pada hari itu suatu komposisi yang berlainan daripada dadah yang biasa di ambil olehnya?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
COMMENT : RELEVANT, TAKE NOTE ON THE TYPO ERROR (HIGHLIGHTED)
Team 44
1. Adakah pihak perayu boleh mengalihkan beban liabiliti kepada Dan sebaliknya kerana membekalkan heroin yang tercemar?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta. SIla rujuk soalan.
2. Adakah Rokok telah meninggal dunia sejurus selepas beliau menyuntik dirinya?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
3. Adakah Puffina telah mengambil langkah-langkah sewajarnya untuk menolong Rokok selepas Rokok menyuntik dirinya?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
4. Apabila Rokok menyuntik dirinya, adalah ia kali pertama beliau menyuntik sendiri?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
5. Sejak bila dan sekerap mana mereka mengambil dadah jenis heroin?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
6. Apakah kegunaan cuka di dalam kes ini? Adakah ia memainkan peranan penting dalam pengambilan dadah jenis heroin?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
7. Adakah ‘heroin itu jenis yang bagus’ tersebut berbeze daripada heroin yang mereka selalu ambil?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
8. Adakah Rokok mempunyai apa-apa penyakit yang mungkin menyumbang kepada kematiannya?
Tidak tersebut dalam fakta
9. Adakah Puffina mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa dadah jenis heroin tersebut telah tercemar?
Dadah sememangnya bahan tercemar. Sila rujuk dictionary.
Persoalan
Adakah alasan yang keempat iaitu:
4. Hakim perbicaraan gagal mengambilkira peruntukan seksyen 304 Kanun Jenayah kecuaian mengakibatkan kematian yang tidak termasuk di bawah membunuh atau membunuh tanpa niat.
Seksyen 304 Kanun Jenayah membincangkan tentang ‘Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. Adakah alasan keempat ini sebenarnya merujuk kepada seksyen 304A iaitu “Causing death by negligence”. Dengan ini kami memohon agar pihak berkenaan merujuk semula penggunaan seksyen ini. Segala kesulitan amat dikesali. Terima kasih.
Jawapan kepada soalan ini islah s.304 Kanun Keseksaan.
COMMENT : RELEVANT, TAKE NOTE ON THE TYPO ERROR (HIGHLIGHTED)
Mar 10, 2009
Congratulations!
The Semifinal Rounds consist of four (4) highest ranking Teams from the Preliminary Rounds, as described in Rule 7.1. The two (2) winning Teams from the Semifinal Rounds shall advance to the Final Round. In the event of a tie, the Team with the higher average oral score shall proceed to the advance rounds.
Below are rankings for Preliminary Rounds of MMU Law Moot Competition 2008/09.
BM
- Team 48 (Lim Minyi; Chia Peak Hwa) =82.5% points
- Team 44 (Izyan Syafinaz Bt. Ahmad Haspan; Jaslina bt. Tanzil) = 81% points; 60% oral score
- Team 22 (Kesinee Aiyalu a/p Parthasarathee; Andrew Yeoh Teck Keong) = 81% points; 57 % oral score
- Team 7 (Tan Choon Hong; Chong Xianci) = 81% points; 56% oral score
BI
- Team 38 (Vooi Weng Cheong, Nick; Lai Yee Lee) = 83% points
- Team 17 (Leong Zhi Hong; Lee Chong Hong) = 81% points
- Team 66 (Melanie Tan; Janardhane a/p Muniandy) = 80% points; 56% oral score
- Team 68 (Sharifah Tasnim binti Syed Ahmad; Mohammad Syamil bin Sazali @ Ariffin) = 80% points; 55% oral score
Please refer to Official Rule 7.3.1, the pairings shall be determined by use of "power-seeding".
BM
Pair 1 (48v 22)
Pair 2 (44v 7)
BI
Pair 1 (38 v 66)
Pair 2 (17 v 68)
All teams may submit their request of problem clarification to the administrator at mmulawmoot0809@hotmail.com in a single email on Thursday, 12 March 2009 before 5.00pm. (17:00) local time. Please refer back to the instructions given at this link.
12 March 2009 --------------Request for Problem Clarification (changes)
14 March 2009 --------------Problem Clarification Given (changes)
30 March 2009 --------------Submission of Semi-Finals Memorials
3 April 2009 -----------------Return of Marked Memorials
6 April 2009 -----------------Semi Final – Bahasa Malaysia
7 April 2009 -----------------Semi Final – English Language
Thank you and all the best!
Mar 9, 2009
Day 5 (Result)
Day 5
Wednesday 6th March 2009 (BM & BI)
Best Speaker(s) of the day: Melanie Tan (Team 66); Kesinee Aiyalu a/p Parthasarathee (Team 22)
Room 1
Pair 15 (8 v 48)
Winner of the Moot: Team 48
Winner of the Case: Team 48
Best Speaker: Lim Min Yi
Room 2
Pair 16 (23 v 63)
Winner of the Moot: Team 23
Winner of the Case: Team 23
Best Speaker: Gan Su Mui
Room 3
Pair 17 (10 v 27)
Winner of the Moot: Team 10
Winner of the Case: Team 10
Best Speaker: Sheenalini a/p Sundaram
Room 4
Pair 18 (64v 22)
Winner of the Moot: Team 22
Winner of the Case: Team 22
Best Speaker: Kesinee Aiyalu a/p Parthasarathee
Room 5
Pair 15 (66 v 35)
Winner of the Moot: Team 66
Winner of the Case: Team 66
Best Speaker: Melanie Tan
Room 6
Pair 16 (32 v 6)
Winner of the Moot: Team 6
Winner of the Case: Team 32
Best Speaker: Tan Yen Lin
Room 7
Pair 17 (51 v 36)
Winner of the Moot: Team 51
Winner of the Case: Team 51
Best Speaker: Gan Song Zhou
Wednesday 6th March 2009 (BM & BI)
Best Speaker(s) of the day: Melanie Tan (Team 66); Kesinee Aiyalu a/p Parthasarathee (Team 22)
Room 1
Pair 15 (8 v 48)
Winner of the Moot: Team 48
Winner of the Case: Team 48
Best Speaker: Lim Min Yi
Room 2
Pair 16 (23 v 63)
Winner of the Moot: Team 23
Winner of the Case: Team 23
Best Speaker: Gan Su Mui
Room 3
Pair 17 (10 v 27)
Winner of the Moot: Team 10
Winner of the Case: Team 10
Best Speaker: Sheenalini a/p Sundaram
Room 4
Pair 18 (64v 22)
Winner of the Moot: Team 22
Winner of the Case: Team 22
Best Speaker: Kesinee Aiyalu a/p Parthasarathee
Room 5
Pair 15 (66 v 35)
Winner of the Moot: Team 66
Winner of the Case: Team 66
Best Speaker: Melanie Tan
Room 6
Pair 16 (32 v 6)
Winner of the Moot: Team 6
Winner of the Case: Team 32
Best Speaker: Tan Yen Lin
Room 7
Pair 17 (51 v 36)
Winner of the Moot: Team 51
Winner of the Case: Team 51
Best Speaker: Gan Song Zhou
Mar 6, 2009
Day 4 (Result)
Day 4
Wednesday 5th March 2009 (BM)
Best Speaker of the day: Lau Shin Yee (Team 43)
Room 1
Pair 8 (43 v 70) [ex parte]
Winner of the Moot: Team 43
Winner of the Case: Team 43
Best Speaker: Lau Shin Yee
Room 2
Pair 9 (61 v 50)
Winner of the Moot: Team 50
Winner of the Case: Team 50
Best Speaker: Siti Suraya bt. Abd Razak
Room 3
Pair 10 (53 v 52)
Winner of the Moot: Team 52
Winner of the Case: Team 52
Best Speaker: Loh Shieh Mei
Room 4
Pair 3 (46 v 21) [ex parte]
Winner of the Moot: Team 46
Winner of the Case: Team 46
Best Speaker: Ummu Sakinah Bt. Mohd Zawawi
Room 5
Pair 12 (57 v 33)
Winner of the Moot: Team 33
Winner of the Case: Team 33
Best Speaker: Yogasheelan a/l Samuagam
Room 6
Pair 13 (38 v 42)
Winner of the Moot: Team 38
Winner of the Case: Team 38
Best Speaker: Lai Yee Lee
Room 7
Pair 14 (24 v 18)
Winner of the Moot: Team 24
Winner of the Case: Team 24
Best Speaker: Gan Ca Rol
Wednesday 5th March 2009 (BM)
Best Speaker of the day: Lau Shin Yee (Team 43)
Room 1
Pair 8 (43 v 70) [ex parte]
Winner of the Moot: Team 43
Winner of the Case: Team 43
Best Speaker: Lau Shin Yee
Room 2
Pair 9 (61 v 50)
Winner of the Moot: Team 50
Winner of the Case: Team 50
Best Speaker: Siti Suraya bt. Abd Razak
Room 3
Pair 10 (53 v 52)
Winner of the Moot: Team 52
Winner of the Case: Team 52
Best Speaker: Loh Shieh Mei
Room 4
Pair 3 (46 v 21) [ex parte]
Winner of the Moot: Team 46
Winner of the Case: Team 46
Best Speaker: Ummu Sakinah Bt. Mohd Zawawi
Room 5
Pair 12 (57 v 33)
Winner of the Moot: Team 33
Winner of the Case: Team 33
Best Speaker: Yogasheelan a/l Samuagam
Room 6
Pair 13 (38 v 42)
Winner of the Moot: Team 38
Winner of the Case: Team 38
Best Speaker: Lai Yee Lee
Room 7
Pair 14 (24 v 18)
Winner of the Moot: Team 24
Winner of the Case: Team 24
Best Speaker: Gan Ca Rol
Mar 5, 2009
Day 3 (Result)
Day 3
Wednesday 4th March 2009 (BM)
Best Speaker of the day: Izyan Syafinaz Bt. Ahmad Haspan (Team 44)
Room 1
Pair 8 (56 v 59)
Winner of the Moot: Team 56
Winner of the Case: Team 56
Best Speaker: Atikah binti Mohamed Rosli
Room 2
Pair 9 (44 v 60)
Winner of the Moot: Team 44
Winner of the Case: Team 60
Best Speaker: Izyan Syafinaz Bt. Ahmad Haspan
Room 3
Pair 10 (55 v 5)
Winner of the Moot: Team 55
Winner of the Case: Team 5
Best Speaker: Foong Chee Chong
Room 4
Pair 11 (16 v 25)
Winner of the Moot: Team 16
Winner of the Case:
Best Speaker: Collin Arvind Andrew
Room 5
Pair 12 (13 v 31)
Winner of the Moot: Team 13
Winner of the Case: Team 31
Best Speaker: Suriakala Sivalingam
Room 6
Pair 13 (40 v 7)
Winner of the Moot: Team 7
Winner of the Case: Team 7
Best Speaker: Tan Choon Hong
Room 7
Pair 7 (30 v 37)
Winner of the Moot: Team 30
Winner of the Case: Team 37
Best Speaker: Asra Norsyahadah
Wednesday 4th March 2009 (BM)
Best Speaker of the day: Izyan Syafinaz Bt. Ahmad Haspan (Team 44)
Room 1
Pair 8 (56 v 59)
Winner of the Moot: Team 56
Winner of the Case: Team 56
Best Speaker: Atikah binti Mohamed Rosli
Room 2
Pair 9 (44 v 60)
Winner of the Moot: Team 44
Winner of the Case: Team 60
Best Speaker: Izyan Syafinaz Bt. Ahmad Haspan
Room 3
Pair 10 (55 v 5)
Winner of the Moot: Team 55
Winner of the Case: Team 5
Best Speaker: Foong Chee Chong
Room 4
Pair 11 (16 v 25)
Winner of the Moot: Team 16
Winner of the Case:
Best Speaker: Collin Arvind Andrew
Room 5
Pair 12 (13 v 31)
Winner of the Moot: Team 13
Winner of the Case: Team 31
Best Speaker: Suriakala Sivalingam
Room 6
Pair 13 (40 v 7)
Winner of the Moot: Team 7
Winner of the Case: Team 7
Best Speaker: Tan Choon Hong
Room 7
Pair 7 (30 v 37)
Winner of the Moot: Team 30
Winner of the Case: Team 37
Best Speaker: Asra Norsyahadah
Mar 3, 2009
Day 2 ( Result)
Day 2
Wednesday 3rd March 2009 (BI)
Best Speaker of the day: Ching Kuan Fang
Room 1
Pair 1 (11 v 9)
Winner of the Moot: Team 11
Winner of the Case: Team 9
Best Speaker: R. Kanthan a/l Ragunathan
Room 2
Pair 2 (20 v 29)
Winner of the Moot: Team 29
Winner of the Case: Team 20
Best Speaker: Noorlydia Ahmad
Room 3
Pair 3 (28 v 68)
Winner of the Moot: Team 68
Winner of the Case: Team 68
Best Speaker: Ching Kuan Fang
Room 4
Pair 4 (14 v 17)
Winner of the Moot: Team 17
Winner of the Case: Team 14
Best Speaker: Leong Zhi Hong
Room 5
Pair 12 (19 v 26)
Winner of the Moot: Team 19
Winner of the Case: Team 19
Best Speaker: Chuah Chen Yeah
Room 6
Pair 6 (58 v 2)
Winner of the Moot: Team 2
Winner of the Case: Team 2
Best Speaker: Yew Yuen Wah
Room 7
Pair 7 (1 v 4)
Winner of the Moot: Team 4
Winner of the Case: Team 1
Best Speaker: Toby Chiang Pang Sheng
Wednesday 3rd March 2009 (BI)
Best Speaker of the day: Ching Kuan Fang
Room 1
Pair 1 (11 v 9)
Winner of the Moot: Team 11
Winner of the Case: Team 9
Best Speaker: R. Kanthan a/l Ragunathan
Room 2
Pair 2 (20 v 29)
Winner of the Moot: Team 29
Winner of the Case: Team 20
Best Speaker: Noorlydia Ahmad
Room 3
Pair 3 (28 v 68)
Winner of the Moot: Team 68
Winner of the Case: Team 68
Best Speaker: Ching Kuan Fang
Room 4
Pair 4 (14 v 17)
Winner of the Moot: Team 17
Winner of the Case: Team 14
Best Speaker: Leong Zhi Hong
Room 5
Pair 12 (19 v 26)
Winner of the Moot: Team 19
Winner of the Case: Team 19
Best Speaker: Chuah Chen Yeah
Room 6
Pair 6 (58 v 2)
Winner of the Moot: Team 2
Winner of the Case: Team 2
Best Speaker: Yew Yuen Wah
Room 7
Pair 7 (1 v 4)
Winner of the Moot: Team 4
Winner of the Case: Team 1
Best Speaker: Toby Chiang Pang Sheng
Day 1 (Result)
Day 1
Monday 2nd March 2009 (BM)
Best Speaker of the day: Wong Lien Lien (Team 3)
Room 1
Pair 1 (12 v 65) [ex parte]
Winner of the Moot: Team 12
Winner of the Case: Team 12
Best Speaker: Chu Chai Tong
Room 2
Pair 2 (45 v 67)
Winner of the Moot: Team 45
Winner of the Case: Team 67
Best Speaker: Jerah Teoh Yong Qiang
Room 3
Pair 3 (62 v 47)
Winner of the Moot: Team 62
Winner of the Case: Team 62
Best Speaker: Fadlin Izreen bt Mustafar
Room 4
Pair 4 (3 v 69) [ex parte]
Winner of the Moot: Team 3
Winner of the Case: Team 3
Best Speaker: Wong Lien Lien
Room 5
Pair 5 (39 v 41)
Winner of the Moot: Team 39
Winner of the Case: Team 39
Best Speaker: Cheong Siow Wei
Room 6
Pair 6 (54 v 49)
Winner of the Moot: Team 49
Winner of the Case: Team 49
Best Speaker: Sarra Abdul Rahman
Room 7
Pair 7 (15 v 34)
Winner of the Moot: Team 34
Winner of the Case:
Best Speaker: Shazwani bt. Jalil
Monday 2nd March 2009 (BM)
Best Speaker of the day: Wong Lien Lien (Team 3)
Room 1
Pair 1 (12 v 65) [ex parte]
Winner of the Moot: Team 12
Winner of the Case: Team 12
Best Speaker: Chu Chai Tong
Room 2
Pair 2 (45 v 67)
Winner of the Moot: Team 45
Winner of the Case: Team 67
Best Speaker: Jerah Teoh Yong Qiang
Room 3
Pair 3 (62 v 47)
Winner of the Moot: Team 62
Winner of the Case: Team 62
Best Speaker: Fadlin Izreen bt Mustafar
Room 4
Pair 4 (3 v 69) [ex parte]
Winner of the Moot: Team 3
Winner of the Case: Team 3
Best Speaker: Wong Lien Lien
Room 5
Pair 5 (39 v 41)
Winner of the Moot: Team 39
Winner of the Case: Team 39
Best Speaker: Cheong Siow Wei
Room 6
Pair 6 (54 v 49)
Winner of the Moot: Team 49
Winner of the Case: Team 49
Best Speaker: Sarra Abdul Rahman
Room 7
Pair 7 (15 v 34)
Winner of the Moot: Team 34
Winner of the Case:
Best Speaker: Shazwani bt. Jalil
Mar 2, 2009
Finally, we are there!
Dear oralists,
*Please take note that
- There shall be no stoppage of time during the exchange of questions and answers between the oralist and the judges in the preliminary round.
- Judges may at any time exercise their discretion to grant additional time to the oralist as they deem fit, subject to a limited five(5)minutes ONLY.
- Please refer to OFFICIAL RULE 6.0 Oral Pleading Procedures.
- Please adhere strictly to Rule 6.6.1 Scouting.
- Teams can refer to the registration booth for their assigned court room.
Best of luck preparing for the oral rounds of the Competition!
Vince Lombardi, the football coach once said that football is like life.
We say,
Mooting is just like football too.
It teaches work, sacrifice, perseverance, competitive drive, selflessness, and respect for authority.
It is not that you win or lose, but how you play the Game with fairness and sportsmanship.
Regards,
Organising Committee
MMU Law Moot Competition 2008/09
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)