JUDGMENT

Raus Sharif J:

This is an application by Tan Sri Eric Chia (the applicant) for leave to commence proceedings under O.Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 3Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 3 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (RHC) for the following reliefs:

(i) An order ofcertiorari to remove into this Honourable Court for the purpose of quashing the request made by the respondent to the judicial authority at Geneva, Switzerland purportedly pursuant to the provisions of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 to record the taking of oral evidence of witnesses and production of documents for the purpose of using the said evidence and/or documents in the trial at Sessions Court at Kuala Lumpur Arrest Case No: 62-48-2004 between the Public Prosecutor and Tan Sri Eric Chia Eng Hock; and

(ii) An order ofcertiorarito remove into this Honourable Court for the purpose of quashing the request made by the respondent to the judicial authority at Zurich, Switzerland purportedly pursuant to the provisions of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 to record the taking of oral evidence of witnesses and production of documents for the purpose of using the said evidence and/or documents in the trial at Sessions Court at Kuala Lumpur Arrest Case No: 62-48-2004 between the Public Prosecutor and Tan Sri Eric Chia Eng Hock; and

(iii) Prohibition to prevent any further action being taken by the respondent pursuant to the existing requests for examination of witnesses and production of documents made to the judicial authority in Geneva and Zurich, Switzerland and/or any future requests made by the respondent premised upon similar facts and circumstances; or

(iv) Alternatively, a declaration that the requests made by the respondent to the judicial authority in Geneva, Switzerland pursuant to Part II of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 is unconstitutional and/or otherwise is an abuse of legal process; and

(v) A declaration that the requests made by the respondent to the judicial Authority in Zurich, Switzerland pursuant to Part II of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 is unconstitutional and/or otherwise is an abuse of legal process; and

(vi) All necessary and consequential directions, as deemed fit, just and appropriate be given by this Honourable Court; and

(vii) The costs of this application arising thereof or incidental thereto to be paid by the respondent.

The facts leading to this application are these. On 10 February 2004, the applicant was charged at the Session Court in Kuala Lumpur under s. 409 of the Penal Code. The trial of the applicant's case commenced on 2 August 2004. On the said date, the prosecution tendered an alternative charge also under s. 409 of the Penal Code. Basically these charges alleged that the appellant had committed criminal breach of trust in his capacity as the Managing Director of Perwaja Rolling Mill and Development Sdn Bhd (Perwaja) on 18 February 1994 by dishonestly authorizing the payment of RM76.4 million into the account of a company, Filsham Enterprise Incorporated.

On 17 August 2004, in the midst of the trial, the Deputy Public Prosecutor informed the learned Sessions Court Judge, in relation to the respondent's request to the Judicial Authority of Hong Kong, under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 (the Act), to get the assistance of the Magistrates Court in Hong Kong to record the taking of oral evidence of witnesses and production of documents pertaining to the trail of payment of RM76.4 million, into the account of Filsham Enterprise Incorporated at the American Express Bank Ltd. Hong Kong. The Deputy Public Prosecutor then applied to the learned Sessions Court Judge for an adjournment in order to give way to the Hong Kong proceedings. At the same time, the Deputy Public Prosecutor had also indicated that after Hong Kong, similar application may be made to the Legal Authority in Switzerland and Japan.

On 25 August and 26 Aug