Back
2023 MarsdenLR 901
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CHAN KOK POH – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: J-05-25-01/2022 J-05-24-01/2022 & J-05-23-01/2022]
The ruling ordering the appellant to enter his defence does not constitute a final decision and is therefore not appealable under the Courts of Judicature Act.
Headnote:(A) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 - Section 14(a) - Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Section 30 - Appeal against conviction based on uncorroborated evidence of a child - The Sessions Court found a prima facie case against the appellant and called for his defence - The appellant's application to refer questions to the High Court was declined, affirming that corroboration is not mandatory under the Act - The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's decision, stating no error warranted intervention. (Paras 3, 5, 6, 40)
(B) Jurisdiction - Definition of 'decision' under Courts of Judicature Act - The ruling ordering the appellant to enter his defence does not constitute a final decision and is therefore not appealable. (Paras 12, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant faced multiple charges of sexual offences against minors, pleaded not guilty, and sought to challenge the Sessions Court's ruling on the basis of the definition of corroboration and the applicability of certain statutory provisions. (Paras 1, 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed as the ruling did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties, and the case was remitted to the Sessions Court for trial continuation. (Paras 19, 40)
Issues: The main issues were the applicability of corroboration evidence in child sexual offence cases and whether the ruling was appealable. (Paras 3, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Sessions Court's ruling to call for the appellant's defence did not amount to a final decision, thus falling outside the scope of appealable decisions under the Act. (Paras 12, 19)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charges against appellant under soaca. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defence application for high court reference. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. sessions court ruling on application. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. preliminary objection by public prosecutor. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. definition of 'decision' under cja. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. interlocutory orders not appealable. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. appeal dismissed; case remitted. (Para 18) |
Introduction
[1] The appellant was tried in the Sessions Court at Johor Bahru with the following offences under s 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 (" SOACA ").
First Charge
"Bahawa kamu pada awal bulan March tahun 2018, jam lebih kurang 3.00 petang bertempat di Tokong Ci Guang Ting, Jalan Genuang, di dalam Daerah Segamat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah melakukan amang seksual fizikal ke atas seorang kanak-kanak lelaki (mangsa) berumur 15 tahun 3 bulan. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 14 Akta yang sama".
Second Charge
"Bahawa kamu pada 18 August 2017 jam lebih kurang 9.00 pagi bertempat di Tokong Ci Guang Ting, Jalan Genuang, di dalam Daerah Segamat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah melakukan amang seksual fizikal ke atas seorang kanak- kanak lelaki (mangsa) berumur 15 tahun 10 bulan. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 14 Akta yang sama".
Third Charge
"Bahawa kamu pada 5 January 2019 jam lebih kurang 10.00 pagi bertempat di Tokong Ci Guang Ting, Jalan Genuang, di dalam Daerah Segamat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah melakukan amang seksual fizikal ke atas seorang kanak- kanak lelaki (mangsa) berumur 16 tahun 11 bulan. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 14(a) Akta Kesalahan -Kesalahan Seksual terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 14 Akta yang sama".
[2] The appellant pleaded not guilty and was tried by the Sessions Court in Segamat, Johor. At the end of the prosecution's case, on 7 June 2020, the learned Sessions Court Judge found that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case against the appellant and called upon him to enter his defence on all the charges.
[3] The Defence then applied to the Sessions Court to refer three (3) questions to the High Court pursuant to s 30 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 which are as follows:
(a) Whether s 18 Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 empowers a trial judge to convict an accused person based on uncorroborated evidence of a child which is contrary to art 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution;
(b) Whether s 18 Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 empowers a trial judge to convict an accused person based on uncorroborated evidence of a child which is contrary to s 133A of the Evidence Act 1950 ; and
(c) Whether s 18 Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 empowers a trial judge to convict an accused person based on uncorroborated evidence of a child and therefore has relieved the Public Prosecutor of the burden of proving a criminal prosecution under s 173(m) of the Criminal Procedure Code .
[4] The prosecution objected to the references of all these questions to the High Court and asked the Sessions Court to reject the application.
[5] After hearing all parties, the Sessions Court declined the application and ruled that s 30 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 empowers the Sessions Court to make the appropriate ruling. The following were inter alia the basis of the Sessions Court Judge's findings (see at pp 251-252 encl 10 RR Jilid 2):
"(a) Section 30 Act 91 is not a mandatory provision, as the word used is "may";
(b) There is no proper application filed or made by the learned counsel for or on behalf the accused for the proceeding before the Court to be transferred to the High Court;
(c) The learned counsel only resort to this Court to decide on the issue whet
