SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 MarsdenLR 852

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
BIRD DOMINIC JUDE – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 05-226-09-2013(W)]



The court affirmed the constitutionality of Section 56A of the CJA, allowing bail applications post-acquittal, emphasizing judicial integrity and affirming procedural compliance does not negate necessary arrest for appeals.

Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Section 56A - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39

(B)(1)(a) - Appeal against acquittal and discharge of the appellant for drug trafficking - Application for bail under Section 56A - The Court of Appeal upheld the Constitutionality of Section 56A, stating it serves to ensure the integrity of appeals against acquittals, allowing the prosecution to seek a remand - An acquittal does not preclude the Court’s power under Section 56A to order remand or bail pending appeal, ensuring justice is maintained. (Paras [1] to [22])

(B) Fundamental Rights - Articles 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution - The appellant claimed violation of rights during execution of the warrant - The court found that procedural defects did not invalidate the arrest, reinforcing the application of Section 56A. (Paras [4], [10], [15])

(C) Judicial Discretion - Courts must judiciously consider circumstances when granting bail post-acquittal - A significant likelihood of success in appeal is essential; however, it is not required to demonstrate that previous judgments are perverse. (Paras [12], [19]).

Facts of the case:
The appellant was initially acquitted of drug trafficking charges, but following a prosecution appeal, sought remand or bail under Section 56A. The prosecution argued the provision’s necessity for judicial integrity. The appellant contested the constitutionality and procedure under Section 56A and alleged wrongful arrest based on a faulty warrant.

Findings of Court:
The Court affirmed that the execution defects did not undermine the trial's integrity, confirming the judicial power under Section 56A prevails in safeguarding the appeal process.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the legality of the arrest, the constitutionality of Section 56A, and whether procedural flaws warranted dismissal of the prosecution's appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a valid legal framework exists for the arrest under Section 56A, asserting its constitutionality, and ensured the preservation of judicial integrity in the appeal process.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appellant's bail granted pending appeal after acquittal. (Para 1)
2. appeal process under s 56a of the cja. (Para 2)
3. prosecution's appeal with potential constitutional issues raised. (Para 3 , 4)
4. appellant's contention on warrant procedural defects. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10)
5. constitutionality and procedural compliance arguments against s 56a. (Para 8)
6. judicial assessment on validity of arrest and appeal rights. (Para 11 , 12)
7. court's agreement on constitutionality and lawfulness under s 56a. (Para 13 , 15 , 16)
8. validity of the arrest and application of s 56a. (Para 14)
9. s 56a ensures integrity of appeals despite prior acquittal. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
10. no need for prosecution to demonstrate merits at initial stage. (Para 20)

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the Court of Appeal in granting the application of the prosecution under s 56A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("CJA") and admitting the appellant to bail until the disposal of the respondent's appeal against the decision of the High Court acquitting and discharging the appellant for the offence of drug trafficking under s 39(B)(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 . At the conclusion of the trial on 4 September 2013, the appellant was acquitted and discharged by the High Court after the Court ruled that the defence had succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.

[2] Section 56A of the CJA provides as follows:

"Where an appeal is presented against an acquittal, the Court of Appeal may issue a warrant directing that the accused be arrested and brought before it and may remand him to prison pending the disposal of the appeal or admit him to bail."

The application of s 56A of the CJA has to be read in conjunction with r 58 of the Rules of of Appeal 1994 which states as follows:

"(1) Within fourteen days of the decision of the High Court or within such extended time as the Court may allow the appellant shall file in the Registry of the High Court at the place where the decision appealed against was given a Notice of Appeal and eight copies thereof. A copy of the Notice of Appeal shall be sent by the appellant to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal.

(2) The Notice of Appeal shall be substantially in Form 5 in the First Schedule.

(3) As soon as Notice of Appeal is filed by the Public Prosecutor as in subrule (1), the Court of Appeal may on an application by the Public Prosecutor issue a warrant directing that the accused be arrested and brought before it and may remand him to prison pending the disposal of the appeal or admit him to bail in accordance with the provisions of s 56A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91).

(4) The application under subrule (3) may be made by motion ex parte and for the purpose of this subrule, rr 71 and 72 shall apply."

Proceedings At The Court Of Appeal

[3] The prosecution was dissatisfied with the decision by the High Court and filed a Notice of Appeal on 9 September 2013 and at the same time applied by way of Notice of Motion under s 56A of the CJA to the Court of Appeal seeking a warrant of arrest directing the appellant be arrested and remanded in prison pending the disposal of the prosecution's appeal at the Court of Appeal. The grounds advanced by the prosecution in supporting their application essentially are these. Section 56A is enacted to secure the attendance of an accused person at the hearing of an appeal against him who was earlier acquitted and discharged by the High Court. The provision as provided for under s 56A is to be applied judiciously and the prosecution has never abused this provision as it has been used sparingly. It is only applied whenever there is a strong likelihood of success in the appeal proper.

[4] The appellant in opposing the prosecution's application questioned the constitutionality of s 56A of the CJA and asserted that his fundamental rights guaranteed under arts 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution (" FC ") are viol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top