The requirement for obtaining further specimens after an initial breath test is not mandated by law, as interpreted from the statutory language of the Road Transport Act.

A. This Appeal

[1] The respondent was acquitted, and discharged of all charges against him, by the Ipoh High Court on 15 May 2024, from a conviction by the Ipoh Magistrates' Special Traffic Court on one charge under s 45A(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (" RTA ") for driving a motor vehicle with alcohol above the prescribed limit.

[2] The learned High Court Judge's acquittal of the respondent was premised on his interpretation that the breath test under s 45B(1) RTA is "an initial breath test", which if positive, makes it mandatory for the investigating officer to request the accused to provide two specimens of his breath or a specimen of blood or urine under s 45C(1) .

[3] The High Court held that the respondent's conviction was unsafe because the investigating officer did not request the respondent for two specimens of his breath, or specimens of his blood or urine under s 45C(1) RTA .

[4] Dissatisfied with the High Court's acquittal of the respondent, the appellant in his Notice of Appeal had appealed against the whole of the decision of the High Court. However, during the hearing of this appeal, the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor ("DPP") orally informed us that the appellant is not appealing against the respondent's acquittal; that he is only appealing against the High Court's finding that the provisions in s 45C(1) RTA is mandatory. Nonetheless, the DPP did not withdraw the appeal against the respondent's acquittal.

B. Issue

[5] The issue at the heart of this appeal is the interpretation of the provisions of the RTA governing:

(i) the request for specimens of breath, blood and urine under ss 45B and 45C RTA from persons suspected of having committed an offence either under (a) s 44 or 45 involving intoxicating liquor, or (b) s 45A for driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit; and

(ii) the tests of these specimens under the RTA and the Motor Vehicles (Breath, Blood and Urine Test) Rules 1995 [P.U.(A) 227/1995], made by the Minister under s 66 ("BBU Test Rules").

[6] Therefore, in deciding whether the learned High Court Judge had correctly interpreted the RTA by holding (i) that the breath test under s 45B(1) is "an initial breath test", and (ii) that if the result of this "initial breath test" is positive, it is mandatory for the investigating officer to request the suspect to provide two further specimens of breath or a specimen of blood or urine under s 45C(1) , this Court must interpret the in accordance with the established principles of statutory interpretation - both at common law and under the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (the " Interpretation Acts ").

C. Principles Of Statutory Interpretation

[7] The basic tenet of statutory interpretation is the process of giving meaning to the words used in legislation: see Cross, Statutory Interpretation, 3rd Ed. (1995). As observed by Lord Bingham in R v. Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport And The Regions Ex P Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 2 AC 349, (HL) at 388D, courts in interpreting any statute "the overriding aim of the Court must always be to give effect to the intention of Parliament as expressed in the words used".

[8] The common law principles of statutory interpretation were summarised by the Federal Court in Tebin Mostapa v. Hulba-Danyal Balia & Anor 2020 MarsdenLR 202 ; ; [2020] 7 CLJ 561 ; [2020] 5 AMR 579 ("Tebin Mostapa"