Civil courts cannot review the legality of notices issued by the Public Prosecutor under the Anti-Corruption Act when they form the basis of pending criminal charges.

[1] This is an application by the applicant for leave to institute judicial review proceedings against the abovenamed respondents under O 53 of the Rules of the High 1980 (RHC). The orders sought by the applicant are as follows:

(i) an order for certiorari to quash the letter dated 14 September 2007 issued by En Anthony Kevin Morais (the DPP) and received by the applicant on 17 September 2007, in refusing to disclose the facts and particulars forming the basis upon which the applicant was purportedly identified as an associate of one Ramli bin Yusuff;

(ii) an order for certiorari to quash the two notices dated 17 July 2007 and 16 August 2007 (s 32(1)(b) notices) issued by the DPP under s 32(1)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 (the said Act).

(iii) a declaration that the s 32(1)(b) notices are defective, invalid, unlawful and subsequently null and void and of no effect;

(iv) an order that the s 32(1)(b) notices be set aside;

(v) an order for mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to provide the facts and particulars forming the basis upon which the applicant was purportedly identified as an associate of Ramli bin Yusuff;

(vi) damages.

[2] The applicant is also seeking an order for extension of time to file the application under O 53 r 3(6) of the Rules of the High 1980.

Brief Facts

[3] The applicant is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya and currently practicing as a partner in the law firm of Messrs Lee Hishamuddin Allan & Gledhill. He was at the material time, in his capacity as a legal practitioner involved in providing legal advice to the said (Dato') Ramli bin Yusuff the then Director of the Commercial Crime Investigation Department of the Royal Malaysian Police Force.

[4] On 17 July 2007, the applicant was served with a notice dated 17 July 2007 (the 1st notice) issued by the DPP. The 1st notice (exh. "RD1"), was issued under s 32(1)(b) of the said Act requiring the applicant to furnish certain information itemized in paras (i) to (vi) in para 2 of the said 1st notice. It is stated that failure to comply with the said 1st notice attracts criminal penalty under s 32(2) of the said Act.

[5] Vide letter dated 10 August 2007, the applicant wrote to the DPP seeking an extension of time to respond to the said 1st notice (exh. "RD3").

[6] In reply to the applicant's request, the DPP on 21 August 2007 issued to him a notice dated 16 August 2007 (the 2nd notice). The 2nd notice, exh. ("RD2"), was issued under s 32(1)(b) of the said Act requiring the applicant to furnish certain information itemized in paras ( i) to (vi). In para 2 of the 2nd notice, it is stated that the extension of time requested by the applicant was allowed and he was required to submit the information 30 days from the date the said 2nd notice was served on him. In para 3 of the 2nd notice, it is stated that failure to comply with the said 2nd notice attracts criminal penalty under s 32(2) of the said Act.

[7] Upon receiving the 2nd notice, the applicant wrote a letter dated 24 August 2007 to the DPP seeking clarification over several matters stated in the letter. As no reply was forthcoming, the applicant wrote another letter to the DPP on 4 September 2007 seeking a response to his earlier letter.

[8] In reply to the applicant's letters, the DPP, in a letter dated 14 September 2007 (exh. "RD6"), stated that he was "not at liberty to respond to certain requests of yours in the said letters as they concern issues that are currently being investigated."

[9] On 21 September 2007, the applicant served on the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) a statement under oath pursuant to s 32(1) of the said Act.

[10] On 12 October 2007, the applicant was charged for an offence under s 32(2) of the said Act.

[11] On 26 October 2007, the applicant filed this application.

[12] The grounds relied on by the applicant are contained in the statement accompanying the application (encl (2)).

[13] The application is premised primarily on the validity, legality and ef