Statements recorded under s 112 of the CPC maintain absolute privilege and are not available for disclosure to the defence in the normal course of proceedings.

[1] In essence, this is an application made by the applicant under s 51(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code via notice of motion dated 5 November 2018 (encl 1) supported by affidavit affirmed by Kulaselvi Sandrasegaran dated 5 November 2018 for an order from this court to direct the prosecution to provide copies of statements recorded under s 112 of the CPC to the applicant made by the seven named witnesses offered by the prosecution to the defence at the close of the prosecution case. The witnesses are:

(i) Ahmad Fuad Ramli;

(ii) Lim Cheng Gam;

(iii) Tomie Yoshio;

(iv) Ng Wai Hoong;

(v) Dessy Meyrisinta;

(vi) Raisa Rinda Salma; and

(vii) Kamaruddin Masiod.

[2] In respect of Muhammad Farid Jallaludin, a non offered witness where his statement was also recorded by the police, the applicant has decided not to pursue her request for his statement to be supplied to the applicant.

Law

[3] Section 51 (1) of the CPC provides as follows:

Whenever any court or police officer making a police investigation considers that the production of any property or document is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before that court or officer, such court may issue a summons or such officer a written order to the person in whose possession or power such property or documents is believed to be requiring him to attend and produce it or to produce it at the time and place stated in the summon or order.

What Amounts To Necessity Or Desirability?

[4] Section 51 authorises that documents or things which are necessary or desirable for the purpose of the trial or investigation may be ordered to be produced. So the document or thing called for must have some relation to or connection with the subject matter of the investigation or inquiry or throw some light on the proceeding or supply some link in the chain of evidence. The case on point is PP v. Teoh Choon Teck , 1962 MarsdenLR 430 .

Applicant's Contentions

[5] The main issue here is whether the applicant has met the dual requirement of necessity and desirability laid down in s 51 of the CPC ? The learned counsel for the applicant contended that it is the public prosecutor's duty to disclose all relevant documents to the defence to ensure that the applicant gets a fair trial. Furthermore, according to the learned counsel, the statement recorded under s 112 of the can never be privileged as the law allows it to be admitted as evidence. The statements are not the property of the Government but instead it is the property of the public to ensure that justice is done.

[6] In addition to that the learned counsel also urged this court to adopt and apply the Commonwealth jurisdictions including Singapore and Brunei which have undergone a lot of development of law in imposing some form of non-statutory disclosure obligation on the prosecution. Counsel then submitted that it is against the notion of justice for the prosecution to withhold the statements in its possession that tend to undermine the prosecution's case or strengthen the defence's case. The case of Muhammad Kadar & Anor v. PP [2011] 3 SLR 1205 which is a decision of the court of Appeal in Singapore was heavily relied on by the learned counsel which set out the law pertaining to the duty of the prosecution to disclose unused material to the defence.

[7] It was also contended that the danger of tampering with witnesses does not arise in the instant case as the prosecution has completed its case and the statements