The Notice of Appeal must adhere to procedural requirements; failure to include all relevant charges renders the appeal defective and void.

[1] On 30 July 2013, the DPP filed a Notice of Appeal that "the Public Prosecutor being dissatisfied with the order of the Learned Session's Court Judge at Miri made on the 26 July 2013 hereby the Respondents who were charged under s 12 of the Anti-Trafficking In Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants act 2007 (3 counts), were acquitted and discharged, and hereby appeals to the High Court against the said order." This appeal is against the order of acquittal and discharge at the end of the trial.

[2] I shall set out the chronology of events. Previously, at the end of the prosecution's case, the learned trial judge had made the ruling that the prosecution had failed to make out a prima facie case against all the three accused. He had accordingly acquitted and discharged the three accused in respect of all the five charges against them.

[3] The prosecution filed an appeal against the order of acquittal and the appeal was heard before me. On 6 February 2013 I gave my ruling that based on the Appeal Record the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against each of the three accused persons under each of the five charges under s 12 of the Act. They were called to enter their defence to the five charges made against them before the trial judge in the Sessions Court.

[4] Each of the accused persons appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the accused persons. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the decision was not appealable because it was a ruling made in the course of a trial which did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties and the two cases were sent back for the accused to make their defence.

[5] At the end of the trial, after the accused persons had testified and called witnesses to testify in the trial, the trial judge ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt because there were too many gaps and loopholes in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. He acquitted and discharged all three accused.

[6] On 11 September 2013, this appeal came before me. The learned DPP was absent. Counsels advised that the Record of Appeal was not ready and the Court fixed the next date for hearing the appeal.

[7] On 28 October 2013, DPP Musli stood in for DPP Nur Nisla Bt Abd Latif who was prosecuting the trial and the appeals. The learned DPP informed the Court that all 5 submissions had been filed but not served and parties requested for another date for the hearing i.e. 7 November 2013.

[8] On 7 November 2013, the DPP who was in charge of the appeal was absent. Counsels complained that the DPP did not 10 serve submissions on them and they found out that the submissions were only filed on that morning i.e. it was dated 7 November 2013. The learned counsels submitted that the DPP did not appear to be interested in the appeal, her submissions did not deal with the defence raised during the trial, the submissions were filed at the last minute and the appeal was shoddy and should be struck out or dismissed. It appeared that her submissions were a reproduction of her earlier submissions in the appeal at the end of the prosecution's case.

[9] I refer to the Notice of Appeal in this case. It must be noted that the Notice of Appeal stated that the appeal is in respect of three (3) counts only for which the accused were acquitted and discharged. Very clearly the Notice of Appeal did not state and did not refer to the five charges or five counts which were preferred against them in the Sessions Court and for which they had been acquitted and discharged.

[10] Based on the Notice of Appeal filed by the DPP, the appeal is