Procedural non-compliance does not nullify a trial if the accused understands the evidence; convictions supported by sufficient evidence are upheld despite claims of unfair trial.

[1] The appellant was charged in the Sessions Court for human trafficking of in three Indonesians under s 26J of the Anti Trafficking in Person and Anti Smuggling of Immigrant Act 2007 ("The said Act") and after a full trial was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined RM 10,000.00 in default five months imprisonment.

[2] In summary the evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that the appellant was caught whilst conveying the three Indonesians in his car at 9th Mile, Sri Aman-Sibu Road, Sri Aman. All three had been charged and convicted of the offence of illegal entry into the state by another Sessions Court before the trial of the appellant. The car driven by the appellant that day was registered in his name. Evidence of their convictions were tendered by the Registrar of the Subordinate Court as was the ownership of the car by the appellant through an officer of the Road Transport Department. The incriminating evidence of the three Indonesians (Exh P9) against the appellant were separately taken, by way of depositions, by 10 another Sessions Court Judge. The elements of the charge under the said s 26J have therefore been proved following the definition of "Smuggling of migrants" under s 2 of the said Act which provides as follows:

"(a) arranging, facilitating or organizing, directly or indirectly, a person's unlawful entry into or through, or unlawful exit from, any country of which the person is not a citizen or permanent resident either knowing or having reason to believe that the person's entry or exit is unlawful; and

(b) recruiting, conveying, transferring, concealing, harbouring or providing any other assistance or service for the purpose of carrying out the acts referred to in paragraph (a)."

[3] The appellant in his defence said that he was asked by a friend to bring the Indonesians to Mukah who told them that they were workers and runaways from a plantation company, Mas Ranti Plantation. He said he did not know whether they have passports. In cross-examination he admitted receiving money from them for the transportation and confirmed that he did not ask if they have passports. To a question by the Court, he said that they did not speak with an Indonesian slang and he thought they were from Mukah.

[4] At the hearing of the appeal before me, the appellant's counsel raised two grounds which he submitted should reverse the conviction entered:

(i) Non-compliance with s 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code .

(ii) Non-evaluation of the evidence of the prosecution's evidence 10 with regards to the warrants of commitment for the three Indonesians and the notes of proceedings taken of their evidence by the other Sessions Court Judge and to account for the contradiction in the evidence of PW1 and PW6. PW1 was the arresting officer who testified that he effected the arrest of the appellant at the said road and detained the three Indonesians who were with the appellant in his car at the material time.

(iii) Non-honouring of the promise by the Investigating Officer (PW6) to charge the appellant with a lesser charge under the Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board Act.

Non-Compliance With Section 51A

[5] The appellant was unrepresented at the trial and it is not anyone's fault. The notes of proceedings at p 1 of the Appeal Record states that "he do not wish to engage counsel for today's proceedings". The prosecution candidly admitted, in the submission of the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor, Musli Bin Ab. Hamid that he was not served with the relevant documents in respect of the charge but that, said the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor, is not fatal to the proceedings because before each document were tendered as evidence, the same was explained to him and he said th