[ ] WAN FATIHAH BINTI NADZRIN

[ ] WAN FATIHAH BINTI NADZRIN

The High Court allowed the prosecution's appeal, finding the Sessions Court erred in ordering an acquittal and discharge. Given the prosecution's clear intention to continue, the need for further targeted investigations (LAZADA and telco) based on witness testimony, and delays attributable to COVID-19 and judicial reassignment rather than sole prosecutorial inaction, the impediment was temporary and surmountable; therefore DNAA was appropriate under section 254 KTJ.

Citation
AA-42LB-9-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Public Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Respondent / Accused: Wan Fatihah binti Nadzrin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 July 2022
Case Number
AA-42LB-9-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal Against Sessions Court Acquittal and Discharge
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Discharge Under Section 254 KTJ, Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal (dnaa), Prosecutorial Discretion, Delay and Adjournments, Appellate Review of Factual Findings
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Discharge Under Section 254 KTJ Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal (dnaa) Prosecutorial Discretion Delay and Adjournments Appellate Review of Factual Findings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Appellant / Public Prosecutor

Wan Fatihah binti Nadzrin

Respondent / Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal Against Sessions Court Acquittal and Discharge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court erred in granting an acquittal and discharge (A&D) instead of discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) under section 254 KTJ
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution demonstrated good grounds and clear intention to continue prosecution to justify DNAA
  3. 3 Whether appellate court should disturb trial judge's factual findings given the circumstances and delays

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the prosecution's appeal, finding the Sessions Court erred in ordering an acquittal and discharge. Given the prosecution's clear intention to continue, the need for further targeted investigations (LAZADA and telco) based on witness testimony, and delays attributable to COVID-19 and judicial reassignment rather than sole prosecutorial inaction, the impediment was temporary and surmountable; therefore DNAA was appropriate under section 254 KTJ.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Allow appeal by the Public Prosecutor and substitute the Sessions Court order of acquittal and discharge with a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) in respect of all 34 charges across 12 cases (AA-42LB-5-10/2021 to AA-42LB-5-16/2021)