PENDAKWARAYA 1. RAHMAT BIN GHAZALI 2. MOHD POGI BIN ABD LATEB

PENDAKWARAYA 1. RAHMAT BIN GHAZALI 2. MOHD POGI BIN ABD LATEB

Section 50(3) read with 50(2) and construed purposively means the Public Prosecutor is exempt from the leave requirement and, consequently, an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against a High Court decision on a Magistrate's criminal matter need not be confined to questions of law nor must the Public Prosecutor state questions of law in the notice of appeal; appeals by the accused that require leave remain confined to questions of law.

Citation
B-09-147-04/2019 & A-09-108-03/2019 (CONCURRING JUDGMENT) (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Public Prosecutor; Respondent: Rahmat bin Ghazali; Respondent: Mohd Pogi bin Abd Lateb
Court
CONCURRING JUDGMENT
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 September 2020
Case Number
B-09-147-04/2019 & A-09-108-03/2019 (CONCURRING JUDGMENT) (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Heard in the Court of Appeal; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Held that the Public Prosecutor is not required to state questions of law in the notice of appeal and is not confined to questions of law; may raise questions of fact or mixed law and fact on appeal pursuant to s50(3) read with s50(2) and purposive interpretation.
Legal Topics
Public Prosecutor's Right of Appeal, Section 50 Court of Judicature Act 1964, Questions of Law Vs Fact, Article 8 Equality, Purposive Interpretation
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Appeals Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Public Prosecutor's Right of Appeal Section 50 Court of Judicature Act 1964 Questions of Law Vs Fact Article 8 Equality +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Appellant

Rahmat bin Ghazali

Respondent

Mohd Pogi bin Abd Lateb

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Heard in the Court of Appeal; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against a High Court decision on a Magistrate's criminal matter is confined to questions of law
  2. 2 Whether the Public Prosecutor must state questions of law in the notice of appeal
  3. 3 Compatibility of exemption from leave with Article 8 equality

Ratio Decidendi

Section 50(3) read with 50(2) and construed purposively means the Public Prosecutor is exempt from the leave requirement and, consequently, an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against a High Court decision on a Magistrate's criminal matter need not be confined to questions of law nor must the Public Prosecutor state questions of law in the notice of appeal; appeals by the accused that require leave remain confined to questions of law.

Court Disposition

Held that the Public Prosecutor is not required to state questions of law in the notice of appeal and is not confined to questions of law; may raise questions of fact or mixed law and fact on appeal pursuant to s50(3) read with s50(2) and purposive interpretation.

Orders

  • Public Prosecutor entitled to appeal against High Court decisions on Magistrate matters without leave and may raise questions of fact or mixed law and fact; notices of appeal by the Public Prosecutor need not state questions of law.