PAA does not impose statutory duty on organisers of assembly

PUTRAJAYA: The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (PAA) did not impose a statutory duty or liability on organisers of an assembly to ensure that no damage to property or environment was caused during a rally, the Court of Appeal ruled.
In a 28-page judgment, Justice Datuk Varghese George Varughese said no right of a private cause of action arose if there was any violation or some failure to abide with the responsibilities by the organisers of the assembly.
"It was clear to us therefore, that the provision of section 6 and in particular, section 6(2)(g) of PAA did not impose a statutory duty or liability on the organisers," he added.
He said the word "ensure" stated in section 6 of the Act did not connote that the carrying out of any of the particular responsibility was a must or a legally binding obligation.
"It was more a statement indicating a preference or setting out some kind of guidelines," said Varughese, who was one of three judges who had presided on the panel which held the Government did not have the right to sue Bersih 2.0 steering committee to recover losses for damaged public property incurred in the rally on April 28, 2012.
On Tuesday, the judges, also including justices Datuk Rohana Yusuf and Datuk Mary Lim Thiam Suan ruled there was no provision under the PAA that stated the government's right to claim damages.
That panel had dismissed the government's appeal to reverse a High Court decision rejecting its civil suit against Bersih committees, including its former co-chairman Datuk S. Ambiga, which they sought special compensation of RM110,543.27 as costs to repair damaged police vehicles.
All three judges have respectively, written their judgment.
Varughese, in his judgment, said if it was the intention of the legislature to impose a statutory civil liability or some penal sanction for failure to comply with the responsibilities on the organisers, this would have been specifically provided for within the PAA Act itself by the legislature.
He said the court agreed with the High Court judge's findings that a breach of the duty of care on the part of organisers of the assembly had not been proved.
Lim, in her judgment, said any violation of the rights under PAA were adequately addressed by the realm of criminal law such as the Criminal Procedure Code and the Penal Code.
She also said the court disagreed with the senior federal counsel's argument that the government must be able to have a recourse to the rights provided in statutes, including the PAA, just like any other citizen.
Rohana's judgment dealt with the issue of a counter-claim brought by former steering committee member Wong Ching Huat which the appellate court had maintained the RM5,000 award to Wong for pain and suffering.
However, the court (Court of Appeal) set aside the sum of RM6,000 in damages awarded to him by the High Court for unlawful arrest and detention.
Rohana said his arrest was lawful because the situation after the assembly was told to disperse, became rather chaotic when a small group of unidentified people breached the barbed-wire barricade at the Jalan Tun Perak-Jalan Raja junction.
She said that had led the police to fire water cannons and teargas towards the crowd and the police intervention was needed to keep peace and tranquillity. — Bernama