ABDULLAH BIN HARUN [ ]

ABDULLAH BIN HARUN [ ]

Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient and reasonable grounds to justify the exercise of judicial discretion under Section 310 CPC: the approximately two‑month delay was inadequately explained and amounted to afterthought; ignorance of law and absence of counsel do not excuse the delay given prison procedures to facilitate appeals; proposed appeal lacked merit given applicant's guilty plea to repeated rape of his biological child; therefore extension of time denied.

Citation
DA-44-25-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant/pemohon: Abdullah bin Harun; Respondent/prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 June 2022
Case Number
DA-44-25-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal / Application Under Section 310 CPC to Extend Time for Filing Notice of Appeal (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Section 310 Criminal Procedure Code, Guilty Plea, Rape Involving a Child, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Appeals Prison Law Extension of Time Section 310 Criminal Procedure Code Guilty Plea Rape Involving a Child +1 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdullah bin Harun

Applicant/pemohon

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent/prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal / Application Under Section 310 CPC to Extend Time for Filing Notice of Appeal (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established reasonable and substantial grounds to permit an out‑of‑time appeal under Section 310 CPC
  2. 2 Whether the delay (approximately two months) was satisfactorily explained
  3. 3 Whether the proposed appeal has arguable merit such that extension should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient and reasonable grounds to justify the exercise of judicial discretion under Section 310 CPC: the approximately two‑month delay was inadequately explained and amounted to afterthought; ignorance of law and absence of counsel do not excuse the delay given prison procedures to facilitate appeals; proposed appeal lacked merit given applicant's guilty plea to repeated rape of his biological child; therefore extension of time denied.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time under Section 310 CPC dismissed
  • No leave granted to file notice of appeal out of time