Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1898
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK SIBU
JABATAN PERIKANAN LAUT – Appellant
Versus
LAU HUI TING & ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: SBW-42(ORS)-1-9/2024 & SBW-42(Ors)-1-3/2025]
Compliance with procedural requirements under the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory; failure to address notices of appeal correctly and lodging them within prescribed time limits results in invalidation.
Headnote:(A) Fisheries Act 1985 - Section 11(3)(b) - Section 33(1) - Section 52(1) - Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) - Sections 307, 308, 312, 314 - The Accused pleaded guilty to unlicensed possession of a trawl net in Malaysian fisheries waters. The Sessions Court imposed a fine and ordered forfeiture of the net but refused to cancel the license. The Prosecution appealed against the license return, while the Accused cross-appealed against the sentence. Both appeals faced procedural issues regarding timely lodgment and proper address to the High Court. (Paras 2-4, 77, 78)
Facts of the case:
The Accused was convicted for possessing a trawl net without a license in a waters-related offense. The Sessions Court ordered a fine and forfeiture of the net but returned the vessel license due to procedural oversight. The Prosecution and Accused filed respective notices of appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Prosecution's appeal was invalid for failing to indicate it was addressed to the High Court, and the Accused's cross-appeal was filed out of time.
Issues: The main questions addressed were whether the Prosecution's appeal constituted proper service and if the Accused's cross-appeal lodged out of time should be entertained.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compliance with procedural requirements under the CPC is mandatory, and failure to specify the correct addressee renders the appeal invalid. The time limit present for appeals applies equally to both parties and cannot be waived.
Result: Both Appeals struck out.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
Procedural compliance is mandatory for criminal appeals, including correct addressing of notices of appeal and lodging within prescribed time limits (!) (!) .
-
The appellant's obligation is to lodge the Notice of Appeal and Petition of Appeal within the specified timelines; there is no statutory requirement for the appellant to serve these documents on the respondent (!) (!) .
-
The record of appeal is transmitted by the lower court to the High Court after the appellant has complied with procedural requirements, and there is no fixed deadline for this transmission (!) (!) .
-
Electronic filing systems are recognized and permitted, and documents filed electronically before midnight are deemed filed on that day, regardless of Court office hours (!) (!) .
-
The Notice of Appeal must clearly indicate that it is addressed to the High Court; failure to do so renders the appeal defective and invalid (!) (!) .
-
Errors or irregularities in the Notice of Appeal, such as missing verification codes, do not necessarily invalidate the appeal if the documents are accepted and sealed by the Court (!) (!) .
-
The failure to specify the correct addressee (the High Court) in the Notice of Appeal is considered a material defect, making the appeal defective and requiring it to be struck out (!) (!) .
-
The time limit for filing a Notice of Appeal is strictly enforced; an appeal filed outside the prescribed period is considered out of time and invalid unless an extension is granted (!) (!) .
-
The specific format or statement that the Notice of Appeal is addressed to the High Court is essential; omission of this statement cannot be remedied by irregularity or deemed curable (!) (!) .
-
Cross-appeals in criminal cases are not recognized under the applicable procedural provisions; each appeal is independent, and failure to lodge within the prescribed time results in non-compliance and invalidity (!) (!) .
-
The Court emphasizes that procedural requirements, including timeliness and proper addressing, are statutory and cannot be waived by the prosecution or the accused, and non-compliance leads to the appeal being struck out (!) (!) .
-
Electronic lodgement of documents outside Court hours is deemed valid, and documents filed before midnight are considered filed on that day, supporting the validity of late-night filings (!) (!) .
-
Overall, procedural irregularities such as improper addressing, late filing, or failure to specify the High Court in notices result in the invalidation of appeals, underscoring the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements in criminal appellate procedures.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. guilty plea and sentencing details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. notices of appeal filed by both parties. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. procedure regarding confusion over appellants. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 4. arguments surrounding service of notice. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. procedures for filing appeals. (Para 21 , 22 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. lodgment of appeals via electronic means. (Para 35 , 38 , 40 , 44) |
| 7. requirement for notices to clearly address high court. (Para 51 , 52 , 56 , 58) |
| 8. timeliness of accused's cross-appeal. (Para 63 , 64 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 75) |
| 9. orders concerning notices of appeal struck out. (Para 76 , 77) |
Brief Backgrounds
[1] To avoid confusion, the Court will refer to the parties as they were referred to in the Sessions Court, namely, the Prosecution as "the Prosecution" and the Accused as "the Accused."
[2] On 6 September 2024, the Accused pleaded guilty before the Sessions Court in Sarikei to a charge of possessing a fishing appliance, namely a trawl net, on a vessel in Malaysian fisheries waters on 14 February 2023 without a licence, in contravention of s 11(3)(b) of the Fisheries Act 1985 .
[3] Following the guilty plea, the Sessions Court convicted the Accused and imposed a sentence of a fine of RM8,000.00, with six (6) months' imprisonment in default of payment.
[4] The Sessions Court did not make an order under s 33(1) of the Fisheries Act 1985 for cancellation of licence or permit as no such licence or permit was issued in relation to the seized trawl net (Exhibit P20).
[5] However, pursuant to s 52(1) of the same Act, the Sessions Court ordered the forfeiture of the trawl net (Exhibit P20) and the proceeds from the sale of fish (Exhibit P8), amounting to RM250.00, to the Government of Malaysia.
[6] The Sessions Court also ordered the return of one booklet of "Lesen Vesel Dan Alat" (Exhibit P7) to the rightful owner by the Prosecution after the lapse of appeal period.
[7] The Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) filed a Notice of Appeal dated and lodged on 20 September 2024, challenging that part of the Sessions Court's decision which ordered the return of the vessel licence (SFI-1082) to the Accused and declined to order the forfeiture of the vessel and all related equipment.
[8] Subsequently, the Accused also filed a Notice of Appeal dated and lodged on 27 September 2024.. The Notice states that the appeal is against the sentence. It also states that the appeal is a cross-appeal in response to the Notice of Appeal lodged by the Prosecution.
[9] The Prosecution's appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No SBW-42(Ors)-1-9/2024 and was first called for case management before the Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) on 30 October 2024. During the case management, the Court was informed that the Accused had also filed a Notice of Appeal and intended to raise a preliminary objection to the Prosecution's appeal on the ground that it had been served on his advocates out of time.
[10] The matters were called for case management again on 28 November 2024 and 24 January 2025 before the learned SAR. Notwithstanding that the Record of Appeal had yet to be prepared and transmitted to this Court, the Accused sought to have his preliminary objection heard. Consequently, the SAR directed that written submissions be filed for the purpose of a hearing on the preliminary objection.
[11] The Accused filed his written submission under encl 7 in Criminal Appeal No SBW-42(ORS)-1-9/2024, referring to himself as "the appellant." Similarly, the Prosecution filed their written submission under encl 9, also referring to themselves as "the appellant."
[12] Notably, in their written submissions, the Prosecution also raised a preliminary objection to the Accused's Notice of Appeal dated and lodged on 27 September 2024, on the ground that it was lodged out of time as prescribed under s 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC ).
[13] When Criminal Appeal No. SBW-42(ORS)-1-9/2024 was called for hearing of the preliminary
