Meor Hashimi Abdul Hamid JC:

JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND FACTS

[1]The appellant in his capacity as the Public Prosecutor under s. 339Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”)

[2]The function of a magistrate or sessions court judge (the learned coroner) holding 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. 337CPC

[3]The ‘cause of death’ as defined under s. 328CPC

[4]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 officer.

[5]The learned coroner however rejected the application by the Seafield Mariaman Temple Task Force (“Task Force”) to be made a party to the inquest proceedings which they subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal.

[6]The Task Force’s appeal and their application to stay the inquest was fixed for hearing before the Court of Appeal on 15/4/2019. The learned DPP having charge of 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.

[7]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.

[8]One of the witnesses at the inquest was Professor Dr Shahrom bin Abdul Majid, an independent pathologist whom was scheduled to give his evidence at the inquest on 27/5/2019.

[9]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 continue to give his evidence.

[10]As a result of Syazlin Mansor’s withdrawal, the inquest came to a halt and a case management was fixed on 26/6/2019 to address the issues of parties’ representation at the inquest and the continued process of Prof. Shahrom’s giving his evidence at the inquest.

[11]Syazlin Mansor’s abrupt withdrawal caused confusion and raised inevitable speculation as this also resulted in her withdrawing from representing the deceased’s family.

[12]Subsequently, the appellant issued a Media Release dated 28/5/2019 to clarify matters related to the said withdrawal (see pages 14–16 of the Record of Appeal volume 3).

LEAVE TO ISSUE COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS

[13]The respondent/applicant filed an ex parte application for leave to issue committal proceedings against the appellant (Enclosure 62) under Order 52 rule 3 of the Rules of Courts 2012. The application was prompted by the appellant’s Media Release dated 28/5/2019 wherein the appellant had said:

“Thirdly, my officers, who are performing their traditional role as counsel assisting the learned coroner, have informed me that Pn Syazlin Mansor takes an active part in the inquest, often contradicting the positions our DPPs have taken, thus causing embarrassment in her capacity as the Ministry’s lawyer”.

[14]The respondent/applicant alleged that the said paragraph in the appellant’s Media Release dated 28/5/2019, read together with the averment in the DPP’s Affidavit dated 3/4/