The Court found that a conviction based on an unsubstantiated guilty plea causes a miscarriage of justice, affirming the necessity for proper evidence and adherence to procedural safeguards before acceptance of such pleas.

Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid JC:

Matter Before This Court

[1] This is an application for a revision of the decision of the Sessions Court made on 18 October 2018 ("application"). This application is supported by the affidavit of Dato' Baldev Singh Bhar, learned counsel for the applicant.

Background

[2] The applicant was charged for an offence under s 326 of the Penal Code (" PC ") read together with s 326A of the same Act for causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon to Ooi Hun Khoon ("victim").

[3] Sections 326 and 326A of the PC read as follows:

326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means

Whoever, except in the case provided by s 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death or any scheduled weapon as specified under the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine or to whipping.

326A. Punishment for causing hurt to spouse, former spouse, etc

(1) Whoever causes hurt to his spouse or former spouse, a child, an incapacitated adult or other member of the family and commits an offence under ss 323, 324, 325, 326, 334 or 335 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twice of the maximum term for which he would have been liable on conviction for that offence under the relevant section notwithstanding any other punishment provided for that offence.

(2) For the purpose of this section, "spouse", "child", "incapacitated adult" and "other member of the family" have the meanings assigned to them in s 2 of the Domestic Violence Act 1994 [Act 521].

[4] The charge ("charge") against the applicant reads as follows:

Bahawa kamu pada 2 September 2018 jam di antara 7.00 petang hingga 8.00 malam di 111-V Noordin Street, Ghaut Flat, 10300 Georgetown, di dalam Daerah Timur Laut, dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang, didapati telah menikam seorang lelaki bernama Ooi Hun Khoon berumur 48 tahun, No KP: 671213- 07-5047 dengan cara menikam dengan menggunakan gunting. Oleh yang demikian, kamu didapati melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 326 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama dengan s 326A Kanun Keseksaan.

Proceedings Leading To The Application

[5] The applicant was arrested on 2 September 2018 and was charged before the Sessions Court on 18 October 2018. The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and fined in the amount of RM10,000, in default an additional six months' imprisonment will be imposed. The applicant was dissatisfied with the sentence and appealed to the High Court vide Criminal Appeal No: PA-42H-26-10-2018 ("first appeal"). The appeal was heard by Akhtar Tahir J and His Lordship allowed the appeal with respect to the imprisonment term only which was reduced from 10 years to seven years.

[6] The applicant being further dissatisfied with that decision appealed to the Court of Appeal vide Appeal Case No: P-09(H)-220-05-2019 ("second appeal"). The notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal was filed by the applicant through the prison authority. At the hearing of the appeal, a new counsel was appointed by the National Legal Aid Foundation to represent the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant raised issues that challenged the legality of the applicant's plea of guilty and conviction. At the hearing of the second appeal, the Court of Appeal opined that the Court could not hear arguments on those issues since the appeal was only with regard to the issue of adequacy of sentence. Learned panel of the Court then adjourned the