WONG LEH YIN vs PP - 2013 MarsdenLR 1373

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 MarsdenLR 1373

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
WONG LEH YIN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent

Table of Content
1. preliminary objection regarding the language of appeal (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. analysis of the language provisions in the federal constitution. (Para 4)
3. article 161 governs language use in legal proceedings (Para 5 , 11 , 12)
4. flawed objection based on article 161 clause (2)(b) (Para 6 , 8 , 10)
5. 20-point agreement's ambiguous language does not hold (Para 13 , 14)
6. verification and admissibility of documents in court. (Para 15)
7. court's discretion regarding document admission highlighted (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

[1] The Appellant Wong Leh Yin ("Appellant") appealed against the dismissal of his preliminary objection that the Petition of Appeal of the Public Prosecutor dated 17 June 2011 was written in Bahasa Malaysia and therefore defective and to be disregarded.

[2] The objection was based on art 161(2)(b) of the Federal Constitution and Point 2C of the 20-Point Malaysia Agreement which provides for the use of the English Language in Sarawak.

[3] It was submitted before us that the Petition of Appeal filed before the High COURT in Sibu, not being in the English Language, was bad in law and inadmissible, with the consequence that there was no valid Petition of Appeal fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 MarsdenLR 1373

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAWONG LEH YIN – AppellantVersusPP – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
WONG LEH YIN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent