Advocates:
For the appellant/accused - Muhamad Shafee Abdullah (Frida Krishnan, Amy Chong Boon Chin & Sarah Abishegam & SP Pathi with him); M/s Shafee & Co
For respondent - Mohd Yusof Hj Zainal Abidin DPP (Nordin Hassan & Tun Abdul Majid DPP with him)

Ground 1: The learned trial judge erred in law by holding that evidence received by the Attorney General pursuant to subsections 8(1) or (2) of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 (MACMA)—such as transcripts of witness testimony and associated documents taken in a foreign state—is inadmissible in criminal proceedings unless the preconditions or circumstances in section 33 of the Evidence Act 1950 are satisfied (such as proving the witness's absence due to death, incapacity, undue delay/expense, etc., or the proviso conditions), whereas such evidence is admissible under section 8(3) of MACMA subject only to the Evidence Act 1950 and Criminal Procedure Code generally, without needing to satisfy section 33 preconditions, because the schemes of section 8 MACMA and section 33 are fundamentally different: section 33 is a general provision for using secondary evidence of testimony already given in a prior or earlier-stage judicial proceeding (where the witness cannot be produced), whereas section 8 MACMA enacts a specific mechanism to deliberately gather new evidence or things abroad for direct use in Malaysian criminal proceedings, overcoming jurisdictional barriers to witness attendance; imposing section 33's requirements would frustrate section 8's purpose (including per section 8(4), which guides weight assessment even if cross-examination was impossible or legal representation unavailable under foreign law), conflict with section 8(4), and render section 8 inoperable in cases ineligible for witness attendance under section 9 MACMA (e.g., non-serious offences or non-consenting witnesses). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)