PENDAKWARAYA Y.Bhg Dato’ Raja Rozela bt Raja Toran together with Tn. Ahmad Sazilee b. Abdul Khairi, Tn. Gan Peng Kun, Tn. Lee Keng Fatt, Pn. Nur Aishah binti Ahmad Zalehuddin & Mohd Afif b. Ali Public Prosecutor [Attorney General’s Chambers

PENDAKWARAYA Y.Bhg Dato’ Raja Rozela bt Raja Toran together with Tn. Ahmad Sazilee b. Abdul Khairi, Tn. Gan Peng Kun, Tn. Lee Keng Fatt, Pn. Nur Aishah binti Ahmad Zalehuddin & Mohd Afif b. Ali Public Prosecutor [Attorney General’s Chambers

The application was dismissed as premature because the impugned provisions are procedural and will only operate when the prosecution seeks to tender specific documents or evidence at trial; absent tendering there is no live constitutional issue to decide and the accused may raise objections during trial when and if...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-44-256-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Ahmad Zahid bin Hamidi; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 November 2019
Case Number
WA-44-256-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Constitutional Challenge / Pre Trial Application; Preliminary Objection Argued and Upheld; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed on preliminary objection as premature
Legal Topics
Constitutionality, Admissibility of Documents, Premature Application, Preliminary Objection, Fair Trial, Equality of Arms
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Law Anti Corruption Law Anti Money Laundering Law Constitutionality Admissibility of Documents Premature Application +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmad Zahid bin Hamidi

Applicant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Constitutional Challenge / Pre Trial Application; Preliminary Objection Argued and Upheld; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 41A MACC Act and Section 71 AMLATEPUA are unconstitutional for rendering documents and copies admissible notwithstanding other written law
  2. 2 Whether the application is premature and non-justiciable before trial and before the prosecution tenders documents or evidence
  3. 3 Whether the impugned provisions violate Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution and deny a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed as premature because the impugned provisions are procedural and will only operate when the prosecution seeks to tender specific documents or evidence at trial; absent tendering there is no live constitutional issue to decide and the accused may raise objections during trial when and if the provisions are relied upon; the court directed the prosecution to give advance notice and identify documents it intends to rely upon under the impugned provisions.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed on preliminary objection as premature

Orders

  • Application dismissed for being premature and hypothetical
  • No stay of proceedings granted