1. Pleaded guilty to possessing a fishing appliance without licence in fisheries waters under Fisheries Act 1985; convicted, fined, with forfeiture of appliance and proceeds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 MarsdenLR 1998
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK SIBU
JABATAN PERIKANAN LAUT – Appellant
Versus
LAU HUI TING & ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: SBW-42(ORS)-1-9/2024 & SBW-42(Ors)-1-3/2025]
Petitioner Advocates:DPP Nur Masrin Amalia Amiruddin ,Respondent Advocate: Chong Chieng Jen,Sim Kiat Leng
Strict compliance with appeal procedures is mandatory; failure to address the Notice of Appeal to the High Court invalidates it, and late submissions cannot be waived.
Headnote:(A) Fisheries Act 1985 - Sections 11(3)(b), 33(1), 52(1), 307(1), 308, 312, 314 - Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal procedures - The Prosecution appealed against the return of the vessel licence and the Accused cross-appealed against the sentence. The Prosecution's Notice of Appeal was deemed invalid due to non-compliance with the requirement to address it to the High Court, while the Accused's cross-appeal was out of time. (Paras 4, 5, 56, 77)
(B) Appeal procedures - The Court emphasized that both parties must comply with the statutory timelines and requirements for lodging appeals, and non-compliance cannot be waived. (Paras 70, 74)
Facts of the case:
The Accused pleaded guilty to possessing a trawl net without a licence and was fined RM8,000. The Prosecution challenged the return of the vessel licence, while the Accused filed a cross-appeal against the sentence.
Findings of Court:
Both the Prosecution's and Accused's Notices of Appeal were struck out due to procedural non-compliance.
Issues: The key issues involved the validity of the Prosecution's Notice of Appeal and the timeliness of the Accused's cross-appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Prosecution's failure to address the Notice of Appeal to the High Court rendered it invalid, while the Accused's cross-appeal was out of time, emphasizing strict adherence to appeal procedures.
Result: Both Notices of Appeal were struck out.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution argued cross-appeal out of time and notice defective; accused argued prosecution's notice improperly served, lacked verification code, and was lodged out of time. (Para 7 , 8 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 63 , 64 , 65 )
3. Court upheld both preliminary objections, striking out prosecution's notice for not being addressed to High Court and accused's notice for being out of time. (Para 76 , 77 )
4. Must a notice of appeal under s 307(1) CPC expressly state it is addressed to the High Court?
Yes. The notice must reasonably convey the intention to appeal to the High Court against a specific judgment. Omitting this renders the notice defective and invalid, and the defect is not curable under s 422 CPC. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 76 )
5. Is electronic filing of a notice of appeal after court hours but before midnight deemed filed on the same day?
Yes. Under Chief Justice Practice Direction No 2 of 2018 and s 272J CPC, electronic filing may be done 24/7. Documents filed electronically before midnight are treated as filed on that same day. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 )
6. Does the CPC provide for cross-appeals in criminal cases, and does the 14-day period apply independently to each party?
No cross-appeal provision exists in the CPC for criminal cases. Each appeal stands independently, and the 14-day period under s 307(1) applies uniformly to both prosecution and accused. Non-compliance is not waivable. (Para 14 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 73 , 74 )
7. Can s 422 CPC cure defects in a notice of appeal?
No. Section 422 CPC applies only to findings, sentences, or orders of a lower court affected by errors or irregularities in proceedings before or during trial. It has no application to a notice of appeal. (Para 59 )
8. Can non-compliance with the statutory 14-day period for filing a notice of appeal be waived?
No. Compliance with the 14-day period under s 307(1) is a statutory requirement. Non-compliance renders the appeal incompetent and cannot be waived by the opposing party. (Para 73 , 74 )
JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Brief Backgrounds
[1] To avoid confusion, the Court will refer to the parties as they were referred to in the Sessions Court, namely, the Prosecution as "the Prosecution" and the Accused as "the Accused."
[2] On 6 September 2024, the Accused pleaded guilty before the Sessions Court in Sarikei to a charge of possessing a fishing appliance, namely a trawl net, on a vessel in Malaysian fisheries waters on 14 February 2023 without a licence, in contravention of s 11(3)(b) of the Fisheries Act 1985 .
[3] Following the guilty plea, the Sessions Court convicted the Accused and imposed a sentence of a fine of RM8,000.00, with six (6) months' imprisonment in default of payment.
[4] The Sessions Court did not make an order under s 33(1) of the Fisheries Act 1985 for cancellation of licence or permit as no such licence or permit was issued in relation to the seized trawl net (Exhibit P20).
[5] However, pursuant to s 52(1) of the same Act, the Sessions Court ordered the forfeiture of the trawl net (Exhibit P20) and the proceeds from the sale of fish (Exhibit P8), amounting to RM250.00, to the Government of Malaysia.
[6] The Sessions Court also ordered the return of one booklet of "Lesen Vesel Dan Alat" (Exhibit P7) to the rightful owner by the Prosecution after the lapse of appeal period.
[7] The Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) filed a Notice of Appeal dated and lodged on 20 September 2024, challenging that part of the Sessions Court's decision which ordered the return of the vessel licence (SFI-1082) to the Accused and declined to order the forfeiture of the vessel and all related equipment.
[8] Subsequently, the Accused also filed a Notice of Appeal dated and lodged on 27 September 2024.. The Notice states that the appeal is against the sentence. It also states that the appeal is a cross-appeal in response to the Notice of Appeal lodged by the Prosecution.
[9] The Prosecution's appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No SBW-42(Ors)-1-9/2024 and was first called for case management before the Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) on 30 October 2024. During the case management, the Court was informed that the Accused had also filed a Notice of Appeal and intended to raise a preliminary objection to the Prosecution's appeal on the ground that it had been served on his advocates out of time.
[10] The matters were called for case management again on 28 November 2024 and 24 January 2025 before the learned SAR. Notwithstanding that the Record of Appeal had yet to be prepared and transmitted to this Court, the Accused sought to have his preliminary objection heard. Consequently, the SAR directed that written submissions be filed for the purpose of a hearing on the preliminary objection.
[11] The Accused filed his written submission under encl 7 in Criminal Appeal No SBW-42(ORS)-1-9/2024, referring to himself as "the appellant." Similarly, the Prosecution filed their written submission under encl 9, also referring to themselves as "the appellant."
[12] Notably, in their written submissions, the Prosecution also raised a preliminary objection to the Accused's Notice of Appeal dated and lodged on 27 September 2024, on the ground that it was lodged out of time as prescribed under s 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC ).
[13] When Criminal Appeal No. SBW-42(ORS)-1-9/2024 was called for hearing of the preliminary objections on 6 March 2024 before this Court, considerable confusion arose, as both the Prosecution and the Accused were referred to as "the appellant", a situation that is procedurally untenable.
[14] Unlike O 55 r 8 of the Rules of Court 2012, which governs appeals to this Court in civil matters from decisions of the lower courts, there is no corresponding provision in the CPC for cross-appeals in criminal cases. In criminal cases, each appeal by the Prosecution and the Accused stands as an independent appeal. To avoid confusion, the Court directed that the Respondent's/Accused's Notice of Appeal dated and lodged on 27 Septe
