Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2164
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
RAVINTHRAN N PARAMAGURU, JCA
PP – Appellant
Versus
MUHAMAD SYUKRI ISHAK & ORS – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: P-06A-20-11/2023 P-06A-22-11/2023 P-06A-23-11/2023 P-06A-24-11/2023 P-06A-25-11/2023 P-06A-26-11/2023 P-06A-28-11/2023 P-06A-29-11/2023 P-06A-30-11/2023 P-06A-31-11/2023 P-06A-32-11/2023 P-06A-33-11/2023 P-06A-34-11/2023 P-06A-35-11/2023 P-06A-36-11/2023 P-06A-37-11/2023 P-06A-39-11/2023 P-06A-40-11/2023 P-06A-41-11/2023 P-06A-42-11/2023 P-06A-43-11/2023 P-06A-44-11/2023 P-06A-45-11/2023 P-06A-46-11/2023 & P-06A-47-11/2023]
The Sessions Court must admit a witness statement as oral evidence if the statutory conditions for its admission are satisfied, without exercising discretion to reject it.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 323 - Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 - Section 16(a)
(B) - Revision of Sessions Court ruling on witness statement - High Court erred in ruling that the Sessions Court had discretion to reject the witness statement despite compliance with conditions for admission under s 402B(2) - Witness statement to be admitted as oral examination in chief. (Paras 1, 28)
(B) Appeal - Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear appeals from High Court decisions made in revisionary jurisdiction - High Court acted within its jurisdiction in dismissing the application for revision on merits. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the High Court's dismissal of a revision application concerning the Sessions Court's ruling on the admissibility of a lengthy witness statement. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court:
The Court allowed the appeal and directed that the witness statement be admitted as oral evidence, affirming that the Sessions Court's ruling contravened established procedures. (Paras 28)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Sessions Court had discretion to reject the witness statement and the appealability of the High Court's decision. (Paras 11-12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Sessions Court did not have discretion to reject the witness statement since the conditions for admission were met and emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in criminal trials. (Paras 28)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Introduction
[1] These appeals have come to us from the High Court that heard a criminal application in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction under s 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC ). The criminal application was filed by the Public Prosecutor to revise a ruling made by the Sessions Court in the course of a criminal trial. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court to dismiss the application, the Public Prosecutor has filed this appeal.
Background facts
[2] The brief background facts may be stated as follows. The prosecution preferred a charge under s 16(a)(B) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (Act 694) against 25 employees of the Road Transport Department based in Penang. The Sessions Court ordered a joint trial of their cases.
[3] When the fourth prosecution witness (SP4) was called to the witness stand, an issue pertaining to his witness statement arose. The prosecution had provided a copy of the lengthy witness statement of 196 pages to all defence counsel more than 14 days earlier to comply with s 402B(2)(c) of the CPC . The prosecution intended to use the witness statement of SP4 under s 402B of the in place of his oral examination in chief. However, some of the counsel for the respondents raised some issues with regard to it. It must be noted that at this stage the witness statement had not been signed by the SP4 as yet in view of the objections raised.
[4] Mr CP Ang applied for the entire witness statement to be read in Court aloud and not merely let the record reflect that it was read. In our view, nothing much need to be said about this request. The Federal Court in Rossarin Nuekaew v. PP; [2017] 8 CLJ 503; [2017] 6 AMR 101 authoritatively ruled that witness statements need not be read out aloud. The purpose of insertion of s 402B into the CPC is to ensure a speedy trial and the utility of the witness statement would be lost if a long witness statement is read aloud in its entirety. Under s 402B(6) of the only portions of the statement that are directed by the Court to be read aloud need to be read by the witness.
[5] However, the Sessions Court gave serious consideration to the objection raised by Mr Ashok Athimulan. He objected to the contents of the witness statement as it allegedly contained leading questions and hearsay statements. We say "allegedly" as the witness statement is not in the Record of Appeal for our perusal. However, the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) has informed us that the witness statement is in the form of a narrative and not in question and answer format. For this reason, we fail to see the point on leading questions if such is the case. But we leave that to the trial Court 's consideration.
[6] After considering the objection of Mr Ashok Athimulan, the Sessions Court directed SP4 to give evidence orally. At the same time, he ordered the witness statement to be used as a "guide". In the original language, the Sessions Court said that "Penyata saksi boleh dirujuk sebagai panduan".
[7] The trial then proceeded with SP4 giving oral evidence for about an hour during which we are told that 153 questions were asked of him. However, when Court resumed after lunch, the DPP asked for an adjournment to consider some issues. The DPP had also by then referred the matter to his head office. By the time of the adjourned trial date of 5 January 2023, the prosecution filed an application for revision to the High Court in respect of the decision of the Sessions Court to order SP4 to give oral evidence in respect of his evidence in chief and for the witness statement to remain on the record merely as a "guide".
[8] It appears that at the outset of the arguments before the High Court , Mr CP Ang submitted that the decision of the Sessions Court is not amenable to revision under s 323 of the CPC . The learned DPP agreed that such a position was taken by Mr CP Ang.
[9] Nonetheless, the learned Judicial Commi
