2013 MarsdenLR 1580

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
DATO SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: W-05-19-01-2012]

The Deputy Public Prosecutor can be validly appointed under s 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code despite potential witness status, as the doctrine of desuetude does not apply in Malaysian law.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 378(3), 376(3), and 379 - Federal Constitution - Article 145 - Application to disqualify counsel on grounds of conflict of interest and legislative inconsistencies - The appointment of the Deputy Public Prosecutor was held valid under s 376(3) despite arguments made under s 378 and the doctrine of desuetude being inapplicable - The court ruled that the trial's conclusion did not necessitate the involvement of the potential witness - Application dismissed. (Paras 6, 30, 32, 36)

Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged the validity of Dato' Sri Shafee's appointment as Deputy Public Prosecutor, citing conflict of interest due to his potential witness status in an ongoing sodomy trial, and claimed that the current provisions of the CPC rendered his appointment void.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the appointment was legitimate under s 376(3) and that the provisions cited did not preclude Dato' Sri Shafee from acting as counsel. The doctrine of desuetude was not applicable, and the applicant did not establish sufficient merit for disqualification.

Issues: The core issues addressed included the validity of the Deputy Public Prosecutor's appointment, the potential conflict of interest, and the applicability of the doctrine of desuetude.

Ratio Decidendi: The court elucidated that legislative provisions must not be interpreted in isolation. The appointment under s 376(3) was valid, and the potential witness status did not inherently disqualify the Deputy Public Prosecutor from prosecution duties, given the nature of appeal proceedings.

Result: Application dismissed.