Back
2012 MarsdenLR 195
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
LIEW SUNG YONG – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 42S-73-2011]
The failure to properly appeal against conviction due to inadequate grounds renders such appeal incompetent, affirming the necessity for strict compliance with statutory appeal procedures.
Headnote:(A) Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 - Section 12 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 307 - The appellant charged with four counts of trafficking in persons for sex exploitation; the Sessions Court found a prima facie case established but the defence did not create reasonable doubt - The appellant's notice of appeal against sentence alone was inadequate to challenge convictions not formally appealed; failure to adhere to statutory appeal procedures deemed fatal to the case. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Rights of Appeal - Appeal must be based on specific grounds of law or fact as prescribed by statute; general right of appeal does not extend to convictions without proper application for leave. (Paras 6-12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of trafficking four Indonesian women for sexual exploitation, sentenced to five years imprisonment, and subsequently filed an appeal against the sentences while neglecting to appeal conviction itself.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no valid appeal against conviction as it lacked foundational grounds, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against both sentence and conviction.
Issues: The primary issues were the competence of the appeal regarding the conviction and the adequacy of the appeal against the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that compliance with statutory appeal timelines and conditions is mandatory; failure to raise specific grounds in the appeal renders it incompetent. The Court affirmed that both the appeal against conviction was non-existent, and the sentence appeal deemed withdrawn.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charges of human trafficking under the law. (Para 1 , 1) |
| 2. prosecution established case beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 2 , 3) |
[1] The appellant, Liew Sung Yong, was charged before the Sessions Court Jenayah 14 at Kuala Lumpur for an offence under s 12 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 for trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation in respect of each case. The four charges in the four cases against the appellant reads as follows:
Kes 62-445-09:
Bahawa kamu pada 8 Ogos 2009 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, di No 44, Jalan Lanchang, Taman Sri Bahtera, di dalam daerah Cheras, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, telah memperdagangkan La Amalia satu perempuan warganegara Indonesia pasport tiada bagi maksud eksploitasi seks dengan demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 12 Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang 2007.
Kes 62-446-09:
Bahawa kamu pada 8 Ogos 2009 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, di No 44, Jalan Lanchang, Taman Sri Bahtera, di dalam daerah Cheras, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, telah memperdagangkan Deviyana Binti Didik satu perempuan warganegara Indonesia pasport tiada bagi maksud eksploitasi seks dengan demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 12 Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang 2007.
Kes 62-447-09:
Bahawa kamu pada 8 Ogos 2009 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, di No 44, Jalan Lanchang, Taman Sri Bahtera, di dalam daerah Cheras, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, telah memperdagangkan Susi Sukarni satu perempuan warganegara Indonesia pasport tiada bagi maksud eksploitasi seks dengan demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 12 Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang 2007.
Kes 62-449-09:
Bahawa kamu pada 8 Ogos 2009 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, di No 44, Jalan Lanchang, Taman Sri Bahtera, di dalam daerah Cheras, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, telah memperdagangkan Elly Kartini satu perempuan warganegara Indonesia Pasport tiada bagi maksud eksploitasi seks dengan demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 12 Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang 2007.
[2] At the close of the prosecution case, and after the prosecution had called eight witnesses, the learned Sessions Court Judge found that a prima facie case had been made out in respect of each of the four charges and had called for the appellant to enter on his defence. For his defence, the appellant gave evidence on oath.
[3] At the close of the defence case, the learned Session Court Judge found that the defence had failed to cast a reasonable doubt as to the truth of the prosecution case. He found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt on all the charges. After hearing and considering the appellant's plea in mitigation as well as the submissions of the learned deputy in urging for a deterrent sentence, the learned Sessions Court Judge had sentenced the appellant to five years imprisonment with effect from that date (22 April 2011) in respect of each of the four charges.
