JUDGMENT

Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ:

Introduction

[1] These proceedings concern the constitutional validity of s 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 [Act 736] ('PAA 2012') vis-à-vis art 10 of the Federal Constitution ('FC').

[2] As s 9(5) is a criminal provision predicated on the non-performance of a statutorily mandated act under s 9(1) of the PAA 2012, s 9(5) must be read with s 9(1), and they provide:

"Notification of Assembly

9.(1) An organiser shall, five days before the date of an assembly, notify the Officer in charge of the police District in which the assembly is to be held.

(2) ...

(3) ...

(4) ...

(5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit.".

[3] To be clear, the applicant only assails the constitutional validity of the penal provision in s 9(5) that seeks to punish non-compliance with the notification requirement in s 9(1), but he does not otherwise impugn the constitutional validity of s 9(1) itself.

[4] Before we proceed further with this judgment, and for the avoidance of doubt, and unless stated otherwise, any references to 'section(s)' in this judgment shall be taken as referring to the section(s) of the PAA 2012. Likewise, any references to 'Article(s)' in this judgment shall, unless otherwise stated, be construed as references to the Article(s) of the FC.

[5] Clauses (1)(b) and (2)(b) of art 10, against which the validity of s 9(5) is principally called into question, in turn guarantee thus:

Freedom of speech, assembly and association

10. (1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4):

(a) ...;

(b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) ...