SALEH BIN NANYAN

SALEH BIN NANYAN

The court refused to exercise its discretion under s.310 KPJ because the new counsel had received the grounds on 12/7/2023 and had sufficient time to file the petition within 14 days; the 40‑day delay to 4/9/2023 was inordinate, unsupported by satisfactory or compelling reasons, caused by negligence or counsel's failure, and incompetence of counsel is not a lawful excuse, therefore the appeal was deemed withdrawn under s.307(9) and the motion for extension was dismissed.

Citation
RA-42JSKS-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Saleh bin Nanyan; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 January 2024
Case Number
RA-42JSKS-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal — Application for Extension of Time Under Section 310 KPJ / High Court Hearing on Notice of Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition of Appeal
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; application for extension of time to file Petition of Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Section 310 KPJ, Section 307 KPJ, Ineffective Counsel Not Excuse
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Section 310 KPJ Section 307 KPJ Ineffective Counsel Not Excuse

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saleh bin Nanyan

Applicant/appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal — Application for Extension of Time Under Section 310 KPJ / High Court Hearing on Notice of Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should exercise its discretion under section 310 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KPJ) to allow an extension of time to file a petition of appeal
  2. 2 Whether the reasons for delay (including change of counsel and alleged need for instructions) constituted compelling grounds amounting to substantial justice
  3. 3 Whether counsel incompetence or delay attributable to counsel can justify extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to exercise its discretion under s.310 KPJ because the new counsel had received the grounds on 12/7/2023 and had sufficient time to file the petition within 14 days; the 40‑day delay to 4/9/2023 was inordinate, unsupported by satisfactory or compelling reasons, caused by negligence or counsel's failure, and incompetence of counsel is not a lawful excuse, therefore the appeal was deemed withdrawn under s.307(9) and the motion for extension was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; application for extension of time to file Petition of Appeal refused

Orders

  • Notis Usul Pemohon/Perayu dated 4/9/2023 dismissed
  • Permission to file Petition of Appeal out of time under section 310 KPJ refused