The court found that additional evidence must not only be new but also relevant and credible; failure to present available evidence at trial does not justify its admission in appeal.

Introduction

[1] The Applicant filed two (2) Notices of Appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of this Court delivered on 4 September 2023 in respect of Case No AB-44-10-06/2023 and AB-44-11-06/2023 pertaining to his applications to admit new evidence under the provisions of arts 8 and 121 of the Federal Constitution, ss 26, 31 and 35 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and s 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC ). The applications were made in respect of his appeal in the Taiping High Court Appeal No AB-42JSKS-2-02/2023 and AB-42JSKS-3-02/2023.

[2] Earlier, the Applicant had been convicted by the Taiping Sessions Court on 16 February 2023 in Case No AB-62JSK-20-11/2019 after he was found guilty and convicted on three (3) amended charges of requesting for child pornography under s 8(b) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 ("the 2017 Act") and one (1) charge under the same section in Case No AB-62JSK-21-11/2019. The Applicant was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment from the date of conviction 16 February 2023 and 3 strokes of the rotan in respect of each charge and ali imprisonment sentences were to run concurrently. He was also sentence to undergo counselling while in prison and 3 years' police supervision after completing the imprisonment sentence. The Sessions Court allowed a stay of execution pending appeal against conviction and sentence to the High Court. This Grounds of Judgment sets out the reasons for dismissal of both applications.

The Application

[3] Although he was charged in September 2019, trial only commenced on 24 March 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Applicant at the lower Court was represented by his solicitor Messrs. Hakimi, Lalitha & Mardhiyah & Associates, Taiping. The Notis Unsul was filed by a different solicitor Messrs. Abdullah, Maznah & Jefri, Kuala Lumpur on 19 June 2023 as per Enel. 1 together with the Afidavit Sokongan in Enel. 2. affirmed by the Applicant himself. The application was made for admission of a purportedly new evidence that was not available during the trial.

[4] The Notis Usui sought the Court's leave for the following:

i. Bahawa Pemohon/Perayu yang dinamakan di atas diberi kebenaran untuk mengemukakan cabutan/ekstrak profail akaun-akaun BIGO Pengadu (SP10) seperti yang dilampirkan dalam Afidavit Sokongan HENDRA BIN MULANA yang diikrarkan pada 16 June 2023 yang mana difailkan di sini dalam menyokong Notis llsul ini sebagai bukti-bukti keterangan baru/ianjutan untuk dibaca dan dirujuk secara bersekali untuk dan bagi tujuan pendengaran rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Taiping bagi kes Rayuan Jenayah No AB-42JSKS-2-02/2023 ('rayuan tersebut');

2. Bahawa Pemohon/Perayu diberi kebenaran untuk memfailkan bukti-bukti keterangan baru/lanjutan yang dipohon tersebut sebagai Rekod rayuan Tambahan bagi kes Rayuan Jenayah No AB-42JSKS-2-02/2023 ('rayuan tersebut');

3. Bahawa Pemohon/Perayu diberi kebenaran untuk meminda Petisyen Rayuan bertarikh 28 April 2023 selaran dengan perintah dan kebenaran yang diberikan daiam perenggan (1) dan (2) di atas;

4. Bahawa selanjutnya dan selaras dengan s 317 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (Akta 573) keterangan baru/lanjutan berkaitan profail akaun- akaun BIGO Pengadu (SP10) diambil dan diterima masuk untuk dan bagi tujuan pendengaran rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Taiping bagi kes Rayuan Jenayah No AB-42JSKS-2-02/2023 ('rayuan tersebut');

5. Bahawa sekiranya adil dan suaimanfaat tarikh Rayuan pada 14 August 2023 dijadualka