The Kuala Lumpur High Court today reserved its judgment on whether or not to grant lawyer Karpal Singh's motion for judicial pronouncement on the legality of traffic notifications relating to speed limit offences.

Justice Abdul Hamid Said today said that he will deliver a decision on a date to be fixed later after hearing lengthy submissions from Karpal and senior assistant registrar Azahar Mohamed who appeared for the defendants, federal Traffic Police chief Ahmad Bahrin Idrus and the government.

Earlier, Abdul Hamid asked Karpal whether he will be intervening in a possible criminal proceeding at the magistrate's court in relation to the offence stated in the notification issued by the police.

Karpal replied that the law states that the notification is not an initiation for the commencement of a legal proceeding against him and if the court make any declaration it will not affect any criminal proceeding.

"The law merely says that they (the police) may send the notification. It's not a regulation for them to take the matter to court. This means they don't have to send the notifications to the motorists but they chose to do so," he said.

Abdul Hamid also asked whether any declaration made would affect other pending criminal proceedings, to which Karpal replied that there is a possibility that the pending proceeding at the magistrate's court may get affected.

"But as I submitted yesterday, even if it does have an effect to other cases, it should not be a basis for the court to dismiss the application. Just because it will cause the government and the police hardship, it should not stop the court to interpret the law as it is and make the correct decision," he said.

Abdul Hamid said that he posed the questions because he needed to study all possibilities before making a decision.

Seeks declarations

Karpal is seeking several declarations relating to two traffic offence notifications and offers of a compound, dated April 30 this year, which he had received.

He wants, among others, a declaration that the notifications sent to him by registered post is void, illegal, invalid and inconsequential and hence, he need not pay the compound of RM110 for the offence of speeding which he is alleged to have committed.

In his affidavit in support of the motion, Karpal Singh said he had received two notifications and offers to compound an offence of driving above the speed limit at Km 12 Air Keroh, Malacca, on Jan 11 this year.

He said both notifications offered a compound of RM110 and he was given until May 30 to pay up, failing which he would be summoned.

He said the traffic chief had acted ultra vires his powers because an offence like speeding, under section 79(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1987 was not compoundable under Rule 3 of the Road Traffic (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 1959.

The police replied that the two copies of Karpal's offence were unintentionally printed through the "traffic cop" system but claimed that the act will not prejudice Karpal as the system will automatically reject any second compound payment for the same offence.

It was submitted that the civil court should not make any declarations on the issue in fear of transgressing the criminal jurisdiction of a magistrate's court.