The coroner's authority to grant leave for committal proceedings is conditional on strict procedural compliance, and the standard of proof for criminal contempt must be beyond reasonable doubt.

[1]The appeal by the Attorney General (appellant) was heard on 24/12/2019 and the decision of this court was delivered on 28/1/2020. On the said date, this court gave a summary of its decision and now delivers its full decision.

[2]The respondent/applicant is presently appealing to the Court of Appeal on the decision of this court.

[3]The background facts in brief are as follows:

(i)The appellant in his capacity as the Public Prosecutor under s. 339 Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC )

(ii)The inquest was conducted by a sessions court judge (the learned coroner) and during the course of the inquest, on application by the respondent/applicant, the learned coroner granted leave to respondent/applicant to initiate committal proceedings against the appellant. The decision of the learned coroner dated 27/8/2019 can be seen at pp 28-41 of the Record of Appeal Volume 1 [ROA Vol.1].

(iii)The function of a magistrate or sessions court judge sitting as a coroner in an inquest (inquiry) under Chapter XXXII of the CPC is to enquire, when, where, how, and in what manner the deceased came by his death and also whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of death of the deceased as provided for under s. 337

(iv)The cause of death as defined under s. 328CPC Teoh Meng Kee v Public Prosecutor [2014] 5 MLJ 741Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019 - Arahan Amalan Bil 2 Tahun 2019: Pengendalian Laporan Mati Mengejut Dan Siasatan Kematian Oleh Mahkamah Sesyen Koroner).

(v)In the instant case, the said inquest proceeded before the learned coroner with the presence of representatives from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Fire and Rescue Services Department and the deceased’s family whom all were acknowledged as interested parties and therefore allowed to hold watching brief in the inquest proceedings. The said inquest was also assisted by a Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) from the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) whom acted as the conducting/assisting officer.

(vi)The learned coroner however rejected the application by the Seafield Mariamman Temple Task Force (Task Force) to be made a party to the inquest proceedings which they subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal.

(vii)The Task Force’s appeal and their application to stay of proceeding of the inquest was fixed for hearing before the Court of Appeal on 15/4/2019. The learned DPP (Hamdan Hamzah) who was conducting/assisting the inquest affirmed an affidavit dated 3/4/2019 (DPP’s Affidavit) where he stated therein inter alia that the deceased’s death was not due to assault by any person. This resulted in the Task Force withdrawing their appeal and subsequently all related proceedings in the Court of Appeal were struck out.

(viii)The said inquest thereafter commenced on 11/2/2019 and proceeded with the calling of witnesses by the conducting officer. Apart from the conducting officer, an advocate and solicitor by the name of Syazlin Mansor was appointed as counsel to hold watching brief on behalf of all the three interested parties in the inquest ie. the Ministry, the Fire and Rescue Department and the deceased’s family.

(ix)One of the witnesses at the inquest was Professor Dr Shahrom bin Abdul Majid (SI 29), an independent pathologist whom was scheduled to give his evidence at the inquest on 27/5/2019.

(x)However what transpired on the said 27/5/2019 was, Syazlin Mansor abruptly applied to withdraw from representing the Ministry, the Fire and Rescue Department and the deceased’s family and further informed the learned coroner that Prof. Shahrom would not c