Augustine Paul JCA:

KWK ("the subject"), a child within the meaning of the Child Act 2001 ("the Act"), was found guilty of an offence of murder under s. 302 of the Penal Codeon 1 July 2003. The sentence to be imposed was deferred to another date pending the production of a probation report. On 24 July 2003 the subject was ordered to be detained at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong pursuant to s. 97(2) of the Act. Notices of appeal were filed against the orders made. An application for a stay of execution made in the High Court was dismissed on 7 August 2003. The subject then filed a motion for stay of execution ("the motion") in the Court of Appeal on 11 August 2003 which was heard on 18 August 2003.

At the hearing before us learned counsel for the subject advanced several grounds in support of the motion. Firstly, he argued that it will take time for the appeal to be heard. He further said that at the moment there are 175 criminal appeals ready for hearing in the Court of Appeal. With a further right of appeal to the Federal Court in this case it would take at least two years for the appeal to be finally disposed of. He argued that this delay will make it incongruous for the Board of Visitors to make their recommendation as provided by s. 97(4) of the Act. This is because it would be difficult for them to comply with s. 97(4) of the Actwhen the appeal has not been finally determined. Secondly, he said that this appeal involves a novel point of law as stated in para. 9.1 of his affidavit. It reads as follows:

Terdapatnya isu-isu perundangan yang baru di dalam rayuan yang berkemungkinan besar akan dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan berpihak kepada penama di atas, khususnya penolakan keterangan saksi pembelaan, Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr M Mahadevan yang merupakan keterangan saintifik dan sepatutnya diterima dan aplikasi ujian orang waras ('reasonable man test') berhubung dengan pembelaan provokasi memandangkan penama di atas adalah seorang kanak-kanak. Salah arahan-salah arahan tersebut adalah 'fundamental' dan menyebabkan rayuan kepada Mahkamah Rayuan penama di atas bermerit. Tambahan pula, peruntukan-peruntukan seksyen 97(4) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 terhadap penangguhan perlaksanaan dan jaminan adalah bertentangan dengan penolakan penangguhan perlaksanaan dan jaminan setelah penama di atas telahpun menggunapakai hak rayuannya ke Mahkamah Rayuan, dan sekiranya beliau gagal dalam permohonannya tersebut, untuk merayu secara akhir ke Mahkamah Persekutuan memandangkan penama di atas tidak dihukum mati tetapi untuk penjara selama yang diperkenankan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Thirdly, he argued that the education of the subject will be seriously hampered if he is not allowed a stay of execution. He advanced several reasons in support of this ground. He also said that the prison does not have facilities for the subject to continue his education effectively. The probation report on the subject is also favourable to him. The subject is also a first offender and there is no possibility of him being involved in similar or other offences. Learned counsel added that this court may impose the same conditions, or even stricter ones, as those imposed by the High Court when the subject was enlarged on bail when he was charged. In his reply the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor said that the court has a discretion to order a stay of execution only where there are special circumstances. The reply of the prosecution to learned counsel's argument on the point of law involved is contained in an affidavit affirmed by the Deputy Public Prosecutor who conducted the trial of the subject. It reads as follows:

Bahawa soal undang-undang yang baru ditimbulkan berkaitan keterangan Tan Sri Dato' Seri M Mahadevan bukanlah merupakan soal undang-undang yang baru dan tidak ada salah arah oleh Yang Arif Hakim berkaitan penerimaan saintifik dan aplikasi ujian orang waras (reasonable man test) dari segi pembelaan provokasi memandangkan pemohon adalah seorang