Messages

MESSAGE FROM ADVISOR OF

LAW SOCIETY (MULS)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY

It gives me great delight in writing this foreword to commemorate the Grand Finals of the Multimedia University Law Moot Competition 2008/2009. This is an annual event of the Law School which draws the members of the Bar, the students and the academicians together for the main purpose of ensuring that the members are sufficiently well prepared for the real legal world.

Participation in simulated court proceedings such as the moots, is essential in ensuring that the law students are properly groomed prior to them appearing in the real courts. As such, mooting is an essential activity for all aspiring lawyers and is compulsory in most established law schools. The law school plays the essential role, both in disseminating legal knowledge as well as in ensuring that the students are moulded into skilled oralists with an ability to deliberate analytically and constructively.

For all participating students, do take this opportunity to learn and to improve on the various skills that will be necessary for you to succeed once yopu depart from the law school. No doubt that the pressure can sometimes be overwhelming, with the preparation for exams, assignments, the moots and other activities. The experience and practice gained nevertheless serve you well in the future. This also marks the first year where the moots are held both in English and in Bahasa Malaysia. To the participants , you have indeed shown that speaking in both languages pose no problem despite the fact that the degree is taught fully in English. Congratulations on a job well done.

Finally, this event owes much of its success to those who have shown their unduly support, encouragement and commitment in various ways. To the President’s Office, the Student Affairs and Sports Division (STAD) and the Faculty of Business & Law, my sincere appreciation on behalf of the Law Society for all contributions rendered in ensuring the success of this event.

To the members of the Bar and the Young Lawyer’s Association, a warm thank you for so graciously participating in all events organized by the Multimedia University Law Society including judging the many rounds of the Moot Competition.

To all lecturers and students, your immeasurable contribution have led to the success of this annual event. My sincere gratitude to the sponsors for assisting us in all ways possible. To the organizing committee of the moots, your hard work and untiring efforts must indeed be applauded.

Lastly, my sincere appreciation to those who are present here today, for so graciously taking time off your busy schedules to be with us here.

A very good day to all present.


Thank you.

Mr. Gary Ng Kit Min
Lecturer-Advisor
Multimedia University Law Society

----------------------------------------------------------

MESSAGE FROM HEAD ADMINISTRATORS

MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY LAW MOOT COMPETITION 2008/2009

It gives me great pleasure to welcome you all, to this Grand Finals of the Multimedia University’s Law Moot Competition 2009, the third in the series since its inception in 2007. This marks yet another event successfully organized by the Law students under the auspices of the Multimedia University Law Society (MULS).

The word ‘moot’ is derived from the Latin ‘moveo’ signifying to move, agitate or argue. The first recorded reference to a moot is in the “ Law of Ethelred The Unready” in 997 Denmark. Its present form can be traced to the Inns of Court and Chancery in early 14th. century England. These moots were performed by students as preparatory to their commencing practice as ‘Utter Barristers’. When formal legal education began in the United States in the 18th. century, these practices were followed with lectures and practical moot court exercises. This modified English system continued till the modern case method was introduced at the Harvard Law School in 1870. Since then mooting has become an integral tradition of a Law School.

Here in MMU it has been a hectic and exciting road to the Finals. This year’s series has been unique in many ways. For the first time we’ve had the moots in both English and Bahasa Malaysia simultaneously auguring a new tradition. The number of participating teams increased to 70 teams competing in the preliminary rounds. Another first, is the creation of the MMU Law Moot webpage where news and constant updates regarding the competition are posted in keeping with the multimedia character of the university.

My warmest congratulations to Ms. Wong Jing En the Director of MMU Law Moot 2009 and her untiring team who have worked to ensure the success of this series. It has been a pleasure and an honour to be associated with such dedicated and enterprising students. May I also take this opportunity to record my gratitude to my colleagues in particular Mr. Jeong Phu, Ms. Asmida , Ms. Nurhayati, Ms. Mageswary, Ms.Manique and Mdm. Flora for their support and assistance. These moots have also been instrumental in forging a greater rapport with members of the Bar not only from Melaka but even from KL. Our humble appreciation for their generosity in giving us their time and expertise in acting as judges for these moots as well as sponsorship of various prizes.

Last but not least my very best wishes to the law students. May you grow with the law.

Thank you.

Gita Radhakrishna
Lecturer- Administrator
Multimedia University, Melaka Campus

---------------------------------------------------------------
MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT OF
LAW SOCIETY (MULS),
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY

It is my greatest pleasure to extend a very warm welcome to all of you to Multimedia University’s Law Moot Competition 2008/2009.

Mooting can be somewhat described as a ‘rite of passage” that almost all law students must pass through before graduating and MMU law students who are in their third year of study are not excluded from taking part in such a “ritual”.

Mooting encourages students to apply legal principles in everyday situations and provide practical solutions as well as an opportunity to develop and hone their writing and advocacy skills. Besides that, it also provides a platform for the recognition of students who excel in developing these skills.

However, the law students of MMU would not have been able to receive such benefits from mooting if it were not for the collaborative efforts between all the relevant parties. Therefore, I would first like to express my gratitude on behalf of the Law Society, to the Melaka Bar and Melaka Young Lawyer’s Association who have been constantly providing their helping hand and cooperation in most of our events and activities, including this year’s Moot Competition being the third in its series.

Also, thank you to all sponsors and individuals for their generosity and contribution in making this event a success. Besides that, my gratitude goes to the faculty members of the Law School for their endless support and advice. This year’s mooting competition would not have been possible without their guidance and assistance.

Last but not least, a big “terima kasih” goes to Miss Wong Jing En and her very hardworking and dedicated team of committee members for organising the event. It has indeed been an uphill task for them especially since this year’s competition involves twice the number of participants compared to last year’s, and also a round that is being held in Bahasa Malaysia. The committee’s creative ideas such as holding a fundraising event as well as starting the moot website to keep participants well informed of the competition must also be applauded.

May the best team win!

Thank You.

“JUSTICIA INTEGRITY VENERATIO”

Teo Ju-li
President of Multimedia University Law Society
Multimedia University, Melaka Campus

--------------------------------------------------

MESSAGE FROM DIRECTOR
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY LAW MOOT COMPETITION 2008/2009

Welcome to the Grand Final of MMU Law Moot Competition 2008/2009.
It is indeed my honour to be given the opportunity to organize such a significant annual event for all the law school.

On behalf of the whole team, I would like to thank all the truly distinguished panel of judges who have so kindly and generously shared their time, knowledge and experience with us by judging many stages of the moot competition. This event owes much of its success to the Malacca Bar Committee for their support.

Credit definitely goes to the team around me, who has made this auspicious event possible. I have learned a lot from all of you. From having a fund raising carnival, setting up a blog, sponsorship hunting to five tiring evenings of Preliminary rounds, this long planned event will not be a success if not for the support given by the advisors of the Law Society, the moot administrators, lecturers and sponsors. My sincere gratitude to all of you.

Lastly, I would like to urge all law students to stand up for more MULS events. We who make a difference at law school, will make a difference in the society someday.

To law students, may every encounter, every positive experience of the moot competition will leave a trace on your heart. We are the sum of the books we have read, the stiff competitors we have met and the bittersweet experiences we have had.


Thank you.

Wong Jing En
Director,
MMU Law Moot Competition 2008/2009

MMU LAW MOOT:> GRAND FINAL 2008/2009

Good day.

The MMU Law Society (MULS) will be organizing a Law Moot Competition 2009 for the 3rd year law students. Hence, the Grand Final Rounds will be held on 25th April 2009. The details pertaining to the event are as follows:

Date: 25th April 2009

Time: 8.00 a.m. (0800)

Venue: MMU Law Moot Court (FBL Ground Floor) or through live telecast in FBL Ground Floor, Study Room.

Dress code: Formal
Lunch will be provided for all LAW students.


All the MMU students are invited to the event. If you need more details pertaining to the event, do drop by at our website at www.mmulawmoot.blogspot.com


The Important Reminder and Court Room Ethics.

- Please be reminded that no beverages and food is allowed in the court room.
- Switch off all hand phone or silent it during the court proceedings.
-Bow to the judges when entering and leaving the court room.
-Silent should be observed at all times. No talking or clapping or any disturbance is allowed.
-Please be reminded that except the official photographer, no other photographing, video taking or voice recording is permitted in the court room.



Thank you.
Regards,
Organising Committee MMU Law Moot Competition 2008/09

Grand Finalist (BM)

Team 44 (Izyan Syafinaz Bt. Ahmad Haspan; Jaslina bt. Tanzil)

Team 22 (Kesinee Aiyalu a/p Parthasarathee; Andrew Yeoh Teck Keong)

Grand Finalist (BI)

Team 66 (Melanie Tan; Janardhane a/p Muniandy)

Team 17 (Leong Zhi Hong; Lee Chong Hong)

Problem Clarification (BI)

Team 17

1. Is MY2 a subsidiary company to USA1 and USA3?
Fact is silent.

2. Whether the consent of USA1 obtained by USA3 when the license was given to Bermuda Co.?
Fact is silent

3. When was the license agreement to Bermuda Co. lapse? Fact is silent.

4. What was the license agreement for? To utilize the technology? Or to distribute the ‘Stopthief’? Fact is silent…read the question for any kind of inference

5. Was there any confidential agreement(s) between Bermuda Co. and Mr Tan? Fact is silent…read the question for any kind of inference

6. What was the confidential information(s) in specific that Mr Tan provided Mr Bala? Fact is silent…read the question for any kind of inference

7. Whether Car Secure Sdn Bhd aware of the source of information obtained from Mr Tan? Fact is silent…read the question for any kind of inference

8. Whether the application for patent by MY2 was approved prior to the launching of Stopjack? Fact is silent…read the question for any kind of inference

9. When did the Car Secure Sdn Bhd start to develop ‘Stopjack’? Fact is silent.

10. Whether USA1, USA3, MY2 or Car Secure Sdn Bhd has registered their trade mark in Malaysia? Fact is silent…read the question for any kind of inference

11. What are the similarities between Stopthief and Stopjack? Appearance? Function?
Fact is silent…read the question for any kind of inference

12. When was the confidential agreement being signed between Mr Tan and Car Secure Sdn Bhd? Before or after the revelation of such confidential information regarding ‘Stopthief’? Fact is silent…read the question for any kind of inference

Team 66

1. What was the subject of the ‘licence agreement’ between USA3 Company and Bermuda Company? Fact is silent…
   
2. What was the nature of business between USA3 Company and Bermuda Company? read the question for any kind of inference
   
3. What was the subject of the business dealings between USA3 Company and Bermuda Company? Fact is silent…
   
4. What was the relationship between USA3 Company and Mr. Tan, as well as the relationship between USA3 Company and Bermuda Company? read the question for any kind of inference
   
5. How did Mr. Tan obtain the confidential information pertaining to the ‘Stopthief’ device? Fact is silent…
   
6. What is the status of MY2 Sdn Bhd’s application for patent protection to MyIPO as at 27 November 1995, 30 November 1995 and to-date? read the question for any kind of inference

Problem Clarification (BM)

Team 44
1. Adakah kegunaan alat Stopthief serupa atau sama dengan alat Stopjack?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta

2. Apakah kepentingan syarikat US3 Co memasuki satu perjanjian lesen dengan Syarikat Bermuda?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta

3. Berapa lamakah jurang masa di antara perletakan jawatan Encik Tan di Syarikat Bermuda sehingga beliau menjadi pengarah di Car Secure Sdn Bhd?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta

4. Adakah permohonan MY2 Sdn Bhd untuk perlindungan patent kepada MyIPO pada 1 November 1995 telah diluluskan sebelum mereka melancarkan alat Stopthief?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta

5. Adakah pemilik hak harta intelek bersamaan dengan memiliki perlindungan patent, cap dagangan dan hak cipta?
Sila buat penyelidikan sendiri.

6. Adakah Car Secure Sdn Bhd telah memohon perlindungan patent kepada MyIPO juga?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta

7. Adakah Syarikat Bermuda juga mempunyai lesen untuk memasarkan alat Stopthief?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta

8. Adakah MY2 Sdn Bhd merupakan pengedar sahaja bagi alat Stopthief?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta

9. Apakah punca perletakan jawatan Encik Tan di Syarikat Bermuda?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta

10. Bagaimanakah Syarikat Bermuda boleh mendapat maklumat rahsia tentang Stopthief?
Terbuka kepada andaian penghujjahan berdasarkan fakta.

11. Adakah syarikat US3 Co telah memasuki perjanjian lesen dengan Syarikat Bermuda dengan keizinan syarikat US1 Co?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta

12. Adakah kedua-dua syarikat US1 Co dan US3 Co memiliki patent bagi alat Stopthief?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta

13. Adakah syarikat MY2 Sdn Bhd telah mendaftarkan cap dagangan bagi alat Stopthief di Malaysia?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta. Fakta hanya menyebut MY2memohon lesen perlindungan paten dari MyIPO.




Team 22

1) Fakta menyatakan bahawa plaintiff ketiga (MY2) adalah syarikat yang diperbadankan bagi tujuan pemasaran produk Plaintif pertama dan kedua. Sejak bilakah MY2 beroperasi sebagai pemasar bagi alat “stopthief”?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta.

2) Adakah MY2 satu-satunya syarikat yang dibenarkan mengedar produk Stopthief di Malaysia?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta. MY2 hanya disebut sebagai badan bersama yg di beri kebenaran untuk menjadi pengedar barangan ‘stopthief’

3) Berdasarkan perjanjian antara USA3 dan USA1 Co dan MY2 untuk memasarkan produk “Stopthief” di Malaysia, adakah perjanjian tersebut membenarkan MY2 mempunyai possesi eksklusif bagi produk “Stopthief”?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta. Terbuka kepada penghujjahan.

4) Sejak tahun manakah MY2 menjadi pengedar produk USA1 Co dan USA3 Co?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta

5) Pada tahun berapakah syarikat MY2 ditubuhkan?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta

6) Di manakah lokasi utama syarikat MY2 di Malaysia?
Tiada dalam fakta.

7) Adakah Syarikat MY2 mempunyai cawangan-cawangan lain di Malaysia yang memasarkan produk USA1 dan USA3?
Tiada dalam fakta.

8) Fakta menyatakan bahawa Syarikat Muda dan USA3 Co mempunyai perjanjian lesen. Apakah lesen yang diberikan kepada Syarikat Muda? Adakah ia lesen bagi tujuan pengedaran dan pemasaran produk USA3 Co ataupun bagi tujuan membuat produk USA3 Co?
Tiada dalam fakta

9) Jikalau lesen adalah bagi tujuan pemasaran, adakah Syarikat Muda diberikan sebarang informasi mengenai prosedur pembuatan produk tersebut?
Terbuka kepada penghujjahan.

10) Adakah lesen menyatakan bagaimana produk USA3 dicipta?
Terbuka kepada penghujjahan…sila buat selidikan sendiri.

11) Adakah perjanjian lesen di antara Syarikat Muda dan USA3 Co mempunyai terma bahawa informasi yang didapati di dalam perjanjian itu adalah ekslusif bagi kegunaan Syarikat Muda?
Tiada tersebut dalam fakta.

12) Adakah perjanjian lesen antara Syarikat Muda dan USA3 Co suatu perjanjian yang mempunyai terma-terma yang lazim di dapati di dalam sebarang perjanjian lesen?
Terbuka kepada hujjahan.

13) Adakah mana-mana pihak berhenti berurus niaga produk masing-masing selepas pelancaran pada tahun 1995?(sejak bulan November)
Tidak disebut dalam fakta.

14) Apakah keputusan MyIPO mengenai permohonan paten yang dibuat oleh MY2 Sdn Bhd? Adakah permohonan tersebut tertunggak atau di batalkan?
Tidak disebut dalam fakta. Terbuka kepada penghujjahan.

15) Apakah tahap keserupaan produk “Stopthief” dan “Stopjack”, dari segi kualiti produk?
Tiada tersebut dalam fakta. Sila buat andaian relevan.

16) Adakah mekanisme produk “Stopthief” dan “Stopjack”lebih kurang sama ataupun serupa?
Tiada tersebut dalam fakta

17) Apakah hubungan Syarikat MY2 dengan USA1 dan USA3? Adakah MY2 merupakan subsidiari syarikat Amerika Syarikat tersebut?
Sila rujuk fakta kes.

18) Adakah “Stopthief” sahaja produk yang dibuat dan dijual oleh USA1 dan USA3, ataupun adakah mereka juga menjual produk-produk yang lain?
Tiada tersebut dalam fakta.

19) Apakah isi kandungan perjanjian antara USA3 dan Syarikat Muda? Secara spesifik, adakah ia berkait dengan perjanjian lesen “Stopthief”?
Terbuka kepada hujjahan.

Announcement

Dear all,

Due to the delay of the publication of problem clarification, the administrators have decided to postpone the submission of final memorials to 19 April 2009, Sunday.

Submission & Exchange of Finals Memorials
Date: 19 April 2009 (Sunday)
Time: 8.00pm
Venue: law library

Please prepare six (6) hard copies of the same Memorial.
Five (5) hard copies are required to be submitted to the Head of Administrator and one (1) hard copy will be the team’s copy.

Regards,
Organising Committee
MMU Law Moot Competition 2008/09

Preliminary Rounds Team Ranking (BM)

Ranking/Team No/ Oralists/ Total Score

1. 48 Lim Minyi & Chia Peak Hwa 82.5
2. 44 Izyan Syafinaz bt Ahmad Haspan & Jaslina bt Tanzil 81
3. 22 Kesinee Aiyalu a/p Parthasarathee & Andrew Yeoh Teck Keong 81
4. 7 Tan Choon Hong & Chong Xianci 81
5. 3 Wong Lien Lien & Toh Teng Teng 78
6. 23 Gan Su Mui & Spring Lim Shu Zhen 77
7. 12 Seah Song Yan & Chu Chai Tong 77
8. 39 Tan Zher Rhu & Yee Chew Wei 76.5
9. 34 Shazwani bt Jalil & Safia bt Ilham 76.5
10. 45 Eolanda Yeo Jin Huay & Jerah Teoh Yong Qiang 76
11. 49 Sarra Abdul Rahman& Nur Afiqah bt Zakaria 76
12. 41 Toh Hui Ling & Cheong Siow Wei 75.5
13. 56 Muhammad b Izham & Atikah bt Mohamed Rosli 75
14. 16 Mohamad Ammar Redzuan& Rozarina bt Rosli 75
15. 25 Collin Arvind Andrew & Shobana a/p A. Padmanathan 73
16. 13 Sathiesh K. Purushothaman & Suriakala Sivalingam 72.5
17. 10 Shasha a/p Kummar & Sheenalini a/p Sundaram 72
18. 40 Lim Wei Loon & Tay Soon Chuan 72
19. 62 Mohamad Arif b jamani & Fadlin Izreen bt Mustafar 71.25
20. 54 Kalyani a/p Vengada Chalam & Shangeetha a/p Moorthy 71
21. 55 Foong Chee Chong & Lee Wen Hie 71
22. 30Bindusha a/p Surendrakumar & Asra Nur Syahadah bt Abdul Rashid 70
23. 31 Adrian Tay Kien Chong & Koh Shing Ru 69.5
24. 59Mohamad Zairin b Mohamad Zin & Muhammad Ammar Al-Haq b Ahmad 69
25. 8 Siti Solehah bt Daud & Nurul Iliana bt Ahmad Hasnin 68.75
26. 67 Farhan Aizuddin b Md Paudzai & Nor Amirruddin b Nordin 67
27. 27 Chow Yee Fan & Lim Keat Seong 64.5
28. 47 Khairul Fisyah bt Mohd Fisol & Azie Farhana bt Abu Zarin 62.5
29. 64 Vijayandra Kumar a/l Maruthamuttu & Ahmad Hanafi b Lop Ahmad 62
30. 37 Emile Ezra b Md Hussain & Dayang Nuratiqah Diyanah bt Awang Saifuddin 62
31. 5 Teo Ju Li & Rema Shangeri Mohanaraj 58.5
32. 60 Amrita Kaur a/p Gucharan & Rajambal a/p Suparamenium 54.5
33. 15 Mohammad Khairol b Khalid & Wan Adhila Wan Leeh 53.4
34. 63 Tan Yook Siang & Nalini a/p Gopalkrishanan 39.5
35. 65 Philip Lee Kar Hing & Diana Sulamazra bt Abdul Rahman 24
36. 69 exparte
    

Preliminary Rounds Team Ranking (BI)

Ranking/Team No/ Oralists/ Total Score

1. 38 Vooi Weng Cheong Nick & Lai Yee Lee 83
2. 17 Leong Zhi Hong & Lee Chong Hong 81
3. 66 Melanie Tan & Janardhane a/p Muniandy 80
4. 68 Sharifah Tasnim bt Syed Ahmad & Mohammad Syamil bin Sazali @ Arifin 80
5. 28 Ching Kuan Fang & Neo Han Ying 78.5
6. 43 Catherine Ong Wei Ying & Lau Shin Yee 78.5
7. 29 Calvin Chua & Lee Ren Jie 78.5
8. 11 Selwester Michael Dass & R. Kanthan a/l Ragunathan 78
9. 9 Siti Khadijah bt Zainal Rashid & Amirah Tasnim bt Yaakob 77.5
10. 42 Amirul Ridzuan b Hanif & Nur Diyana bt Ahmad Fauzi 75
11. 2 Yew Yuen Wah & Yap Ching Heong 74.25
12. 50 Siti Suraya bt Abd Razak & Muhammad Ali Redha Bin Ahmad Rashidi 73
13. 35 Nanthakumar a/l Gohbal & Danaindran a/l Rajendran 73
14. 51 Tan Yoong Koon & Gan Song Zhou 69
15. 33 Yogasheelan a/l Samuagam & Shangkarananda a/l Kanan 69
16. 6 Tan Yen Lin & Gan Poh Chin 69
17. 46 Ummu Sakinah bt Mohd Zawawi & Aizat Zamir b Ismail 68
18. 20 Latania John Masabal & Noorlydia Ahmad 67
19. 14 Nico Langgie Ngumbang & Yong Yen Lii 67
20. 4 Toby Chiang Pang Sheng & Chuah Jie Ni 66.75
21. 58 Nur Shazwina bt Nordin & Nurul Adlin bt Nazri 66.75
22. 52 Loh Shieh Mei & Ng Nyet Kheng 66
23. 24 Darmendira Kumar a/l T Anandan & Gan Ca Rol 66
24. 1 Norsyafiqa bt Mazuki & Aidil Ratna Edorra bt Suhaimin 65
25. 18 Lee Cincee & Eng Sok Yin 65
26. 32 Shobna a/p Sivaraman & Sushma Tiwaria/p Karam Shankar 63.5
27. 19 Lee Chiw Poh & Ooi Chee Kin 63
28. 53 Heng Jia Lian & Lim Hooi Nee 61
29. 36 Nur Farezza bt Muhamad Khairuddin & Mohamed Faiq Azim b Mohamed Asri 59.5
30. 26 Chuah Chen Yean & Cheong Sing Yee 59
31. 57 Nur Azuren bt Mohd Othman & Nur Nadia bt Hj Ramli 52.5
32. 61Prashant Dev Nair a/l Bala Chandran & Mohammed Fareez b Mohammed Salleh 50
33. 21 0 0 0 exparte
34. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

1. Team 48 (Lim Minyi; Chia Peak Hwa) =82.5% points
2. Team 44 (Izyan Syafinaz Bt. Ahmad Haspan; Jaslina bt. Tanzil) = 81% points; 60% oral score
3. Team 22 (Kesinee Aiyalu a/p Parthasarathee; Andrew Yeoh Teck Keong) = 81% points; 57 % oral score
4. Team 7 (Tan Choon Hong; Chong Xianci) = 81% points; 56% oral score

BI

1. Team 38 (Vooi Weng Cheong, Nick; Lai Yee Lee) = 83% points
2. Team 17 (Leong Zhi Hong; Lee Chong Hong) = 81% points
3. Team 66 (Melanie Tan; Janardhane a/p Muniandy) = 80% points; 56% oral score
4. 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!

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, we are there!

Dear oralists,

*Please take note that

1. There shall be no stoppage of time during the exchange of questions and answers between the oralist and the judges in the preliminary round.
2. 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.
3. Please refer to OFFICIAL RULE 6.0 Oral Pleading Procedures.
4. Please adhere strictly to Rule 6.6.1 Scouting.
5. 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