Judicial review applications cannot interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings and must respect the jurisdictional powers of the criminal court.

Introduction

[1] This is an application for leave to file a judicial review application. The application is being objected to by the Senior Federal Counsel (SFC) on behalf of the Attorney General.

Brief Background Facts

[2] The facts pertaining to this judicial review application pertain to a criminal investigation and a criminal prosecution in respect of the applicants. The remedies sought by the applicants are remedies that would impact the pending criminal trial against them.

[3] The 1st applicant was the director of the Sabah Water Department. He and his wife (the 2nd applicant) among others were the target of a criminal investigation following the discovery of a large amount of cash, ie over RM100 million by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). Subsequently, money laundering charges were preferred against the applicants. At the same time other officers of the Sabah Water Department were also detained and investigated. One of them, one Teo Chee Kong was subsequently charged. The prosecution successfully applied for Teo Chee Kong's case to be jointly tried with the case of the applicants. The respondents are the MACC, its Chief Commissioner and the head of the Prosecution Division of the MACC.

Remedies Sought

[4] In this judicial review application, the applicants are seeking the following remedies:

(a) An order of Mandamus that the Respondent provide to the solicitors of the Applicants the relevant charges which are fixed for trial on 20th February 2018 in the Sessions' Court at Kota Kinabalu before Yang Arif Abu Bakar Manat well before the commencement of trial to enable the Applicants to properly and adequately and sufficiently prepare for the said trial under (1) BKI-61R-14/12-2016 (2) BKI-62R- 24/12-2016 (hereinafter referred to as the said trial);

(b) An order of Mandamus against the Respondents to provide to the solicitors of the Applicants adequate facilities in the Respondents' offices at Kota Kinabalu sufficient opportunity to examine inspect and verify the documents that were earlier provided by the Respondents for the said trial under compact discs or the CD designated as 10/12- 2016-14/12-2016, 16/12-2016-21/12-2016, 62R-24/12-2016; well before and within a reasonable period before the commencement of the said trial to ensure that the Applicants are fully prepared;

(c) An order of certiorari to quash the application of the Respondents for joint trial of the Applicants with one Teo Chee Kong until and unless the Applicants are first and properly serve the relevant cause papers in respect of the application for the joint trial of the Applicants with the said Teo Chee Kong and until and unless the Applicants are allowed and given the full and complete opportunity to be heard in Court on this matter pursuant to the rule of natural justice known as audi alteram partem (listen to the other side/let the other side be heard as well)

(d) An order of certiorari to quash all charges of the Respondent against the Applicants at the said trial by reason of the fact that the Respondents acted ultra vires against the relevant provisions of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 and the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 and Arts 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution in breach of the rules of natural justice by the unlawful and unwarranted disclosure by the Respondents to the public and to the Press that items including cash that were seized by the Respondents on 4th October 2016 belonged inter alia to the 1st Applicant notwithstanding the fact that the said allegation of ownership and offences committed has yet to be pro