Petitioner Advocates:Mohd Hafiz Mohd Yusoff,Hashley Tajudin,Low Wen Zhen,Daniel Ariff Tung ,Respondent Advocate: Gurdial Singh Nijar,Preakas Sampunathan,Abraham Au Tian Hui,Miguel Jude Sequerah

Key Points from the Judgment

• The appeal concerns a Sessions Court trial where the judge convicted the accused on three insider trading charges under s 188(2)(a) and s 188(4) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007, sentencing him to 5 years' imprisonment concurrently and RM3 million fine per charge. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• The trial judge's grounds of decision reproduced verbatim the prosecution's two written submissions (except for 7 paragraphs), without acknowledgment, reference to defence submissions, identification of issues, independent evidence assessment, analysis of submissions, or any reasoning, indicating mechanical decision-making. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• The High Court allowed the accused's appeal, acquitted and discharged him on all three charges, set aside the Sessions Court's decision, and ordered refund of fines, solely based on the flaws in the trial judge's grounds, without considering the merits. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• The Public Prosecutor appealed to the Court of Appeal only on the first charge (disposal of shares on 11 January 2010 while possessing non-public information on credit rating downgrade). (!) (!) (!)

• Appellate courts cannot set aside a trial court's decision solely due to verbatim copying of one party's submissions, lack of acknowledgment, non-reference to opposing submissions, failure to identify issues, lack of independent evidence analysis, absence of reasoning, or mechanical judgment, without considering the appeal's merits. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Under ss 173, 180, 182A, 316, and 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code, trial and appellate courts must assess evidence to determine if prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt; errors or omissions in judgment do not warrant reversal unless they occasion a failure of justice, requiring merits review. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• High Court, as appellate court, has duty under s 316 CPC to review trial evidence and merits, and under s 422(a) CPC to assess if judgment errors caused failure of justice; acquittal or affirmation requires merits consideration despite flawed grounds. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Verbatim judicial copying breaches first rule of natural justice (impartiality), creates perception of bias, indicates intellectual dishonesty and mechanical action, but does not automatically justify reversal without merits review. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Errors in grounds (including copying and non-speaking nature) are curable under s 422 CPC if no failure of justice; High Court erred by acquitting without fulfilling duties under ss 316 and 422 CPC. (!) (!) (!)

• Article 5(1) Federal Constitution guarantees fair trial, but flawed grounds do not ipso facto deprive accused of this right; merits must still be assessed. (!) (!) (!)

• No provision in Federal Constitution, Courts of Judicature Act 1964, or Criminal Procedure Code entitles acquittal solely for breach of "one trial + two appeals" rights; merits review required. (!) (!) (!)

• Court of Appeal allowed prosecution's appeal, varied High Court decision by setting aside acquittal/discharge on first charge, restored Sessions Court conviction/sentence on first charge, remitted accused's appeal on first charge for rehearing by another High Court Judge/Judicial Commissioner, with stay of execution and bail pending rehearing. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)