CASE OF THE WEEK

The appellant in this case was acquitted and discharged by the High Court of an offence under s. 377C of the Penal Code. The Public Prosecutor (`PP') appealed and, for the purpose of the appeal, appointed an advocate (`Tan Sri Shafee') as a Deputy Public Prosecutor (`DPP') to represent him and prosecute the appeal before the Court of Appeal. The appellant averred that Tan Sri Shafee's appointment was null and void, and in transgression of s. 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (`CPC'), and in the circumstances applied to disqualify him from representing the PP in the appeal. The application was however dismissed by the Court of Appeal on the ground that Tan Sri Shafee's appointment, made as it were under s. 376(3) of the CPC, was intra vires the law and the Federal Constitution. It was the further view of the Court of Appeal that, notwithstanding that Tan Sri Shafee had given his s. 112-CPC statements to the police in respect of the appellant's trial, Tan Sri Shafee was not a material witness to both the prosecution and the defence. More specifically, it was held that Tan Sri Shafee was not a material witness to unfold the narratives of the prosecution's case and that his appointment was not and never vitiated by any conflict of interest. The appellant appealed to the Federal Court and the primary issue that arose was whether Tan Sri Shafee's appointment as a DPP herein, in the light of the relevant statutory provisions, was valid and lawful or was impaired by conflict of interest.

Held (dismissing appeal)

Per Raus Sharif PCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) The Court of Appeal adopted the right approach in rejecting the appellant's reading of s. 378 of the CPC. Section 378 must not be read in isolation, but must instead be read together with ss. 376(3) and 379. These two latter provisions are complementary of each other, and they clearly give the PP the authority to employ an advocate to conduct the appeal herein. (para 7)

(2) At the trial before the High Court, both the prosecution and the defence did not find Tan Sri Shafee to be a relevant witness. He was not called as a witness. Thus, the issue that he may be a potential witness at the trial that could give rise to a conflict of interest was a non-issue. In any case, on the facts and circumstances of this case, no case had been made out to prevent Tan Sri Shafee from acting as a DPP in the appeal on the ground of conflict of interest. There was no reason to nullify the appointment of Tan Sri Shafee as a DPP to represent the PP in the proceeding. (para 9)

(3) The appellant was challenging the validity of the appointment of Tan Sri Shafee as a DPP, not the existence of that appointment. Since the complaint was not on the appointment per se but on its validity, there was no need for Tan Sri Shafee to adduce any evidence on that appointment. There was no necessity for him to depose on affidavit the fact of his appointment as a Deputy Public Prosecutor. (para 16)

(4) The reference by the Court of Appeal to Tan Sri Shafee's statements under s. 112 of the CPC, which had been struck out, had no effect on our decision on the issue of conflict of interest on the part of Tan Sri Shafee. On the facts and circumstances of this case, no case had been made on the issue of conflict of interest. (para 17)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Perayu dalam kes ini telah dilepas dan dibebaskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi, Kuala Lumpur atas kesalahan di bawah s. 377C Kanun Keseksaan. Pendakwa Raya (`PR') merayu dan, bagi maksud rayuan, telah melantik seorang peguambela (`Tan Sri Shafee') sebagai seorang Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (`TPR') untuk mengendalikan rayuan di hadapan Mahkamah Rayuan. Perayu mengatakan bahawa perlantikan Tan Sri Shafee adalah tak sah, dan melanggari peruntukan s. 378 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (`KTJ'), dan dengan demikian memohon untuk menghalang Tan Sri Shafee dari mewakili PR di dalam rayuan. Permohonan bagaimana pun ditolak oleh Mahkamah Rayuan atas alasan bahawa perlantikan Tan Sri Shafee, yang dibuat di bawah s. 376(3) KTJ, adalah teratur dan sah di sisi undang-undang dan Perlembagaan. Seterusnya, menjadi pandangan hakim-hakim rayuan bahawa walaupun Tan Sri Shafee ada memberikan kenyataan kepada polis di bawah s. 112 KTJ berkaitan perbicaraan perayu, beliau bukan merupakan seorang saksi penting kepada kedua-dua pihak pendakwaan dan pembelaan. Secara lebih spesifik, ianya diputuskan juga bahawa Tan Sri Shafee bukanlah seorang saksi penting bagi merungkai kes pendakwaan dan bahawa perlantikan beliau adalah tidak dicemari oleh apa-apa konflik kepentingan. Perayu merayu ke Mahkamah Persekutuan dan persoalan penting yang berbangkit adalah sama ada, mengambilkira peruntukan-peruntukan statut yang relevan, perlantikan Tan Sri Shafee sebagai TPR di sini adalah teratur dan sah, atau dikotori oleh konflik kepentingan.

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan)

Oleh Raus Sharif PMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Mahkamah Rayuan telah mengambil pendekatan yang betul apabila menolak pentafsiran s. 378 KTJ oleh perayu. Seksyen 378 tidak harus dibaca secara berasingan, tetapi sebaliknya hendaklah dibaca bersama-sama dengan ss. 376(3) dan 379. Dua peruntukan yang terkemudian adalah saling cukup mencukupi antara satu sama lain, dan keduanya jelas memberikan PR kuasa untuk melantik seorang peguambela bagi mengendalikan rayuan berkaitan.

(2) Di perbicaraan di hadapan Mahkamah Tinggi, kedua-dua pendakwaan dan pembelaan tidak mendapati Tan Sri Shafee sebagai seorang saksi yang relevan. Beliau tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi. Oleh itu, isu bahawa beliau mungkin merupakan seorang saksi berpotensi di perbicaraan yang akan membangkitkan konflik kepentingan adalah suatu non-issue. Apapun, berdasarkan fakta dan halkeadaan kes, tiada kes telah dibuktikan yang boleh menghalang Tan Sri Shafee dari bertindak sebagai seorang TPR di rayuan atas alasan konflik kepentingan. Tiada apa-apa alasan untuk membatalkan perlantikan Tan Sri Shafee sebagai TPR bagi mewakili PR dalam prosiding ini.

(3) Perayu telah mencabar kesahan perlantikan Tan Sri Shafee sebagai seorang TPR, bukannya kewujudan perlantikan tersebut. Oleh kerana rungutan bukan berkaitan perlantikan per se tetapi tentang kesahannya, maka tidak ada keperluan untuk Tan Sri Shafee mengemukakan apa-apa keterangan berhubung perlantikan itu. Tiada keperluan untuk Tan Sri Shafee mengikrarkan fakta perlantikannya sebagai seorang TPR melalui afidavit.

(4) Rujukan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Rayuan kepada kenyataan s. 112, yang telah pun dibatalkan, tidak mempunyai sebarang kesan terhadap keputusan kami atas isu konflik kepentingan di pihak Tan Sri Shafee. Di atas fakta dan halkeadaan kes ini, tiada kes dibuktikan berkaitan isu konflik kepentingan.

Legislation referred to:

Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 112, 376(3), 378, 379

Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, r. 5(a)

Penal Code, s. 377C

Counsel:

For the appellant - Karpal Singh (Sangeet Kaur Deo with him); M/s Karpal Singh & Co

For the prosecution - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria & Noorin Badaruddin with him); DPPs

[Editor's note: For the Court of Appeal judgment, please see PP v. Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim [2014] 1 CLJ 354.]

Reported by Wan Sharif Ahmad