LEANG WIN SON v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the limited, corrective nature of the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction over bail decisions: where a Sessions Court has properly weighed the public interest and pending similar charges, its refusal of bail in a non-bailable offence will not be disturbed, and pre-trial detention does not offend the presumption of innocence.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns the exercise of the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction over a Sessions Court's refusal of bail. The applicant had been charged with an offence under section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, which on conviction carries imprisonment of up to twenty years and liability to whipping. His bail application under section 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code had been rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground that he had three other cases pending trial, the court weighing the public interest above the interest of the accused. The applicant sought criminal revision. The court set out the nature and purpose of its revisionary power under section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 32 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, drawing on Liaw Kwai Wah v PP and PP v Kulasingam: it is a paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, to be exercised judiciously and only to correct or prevent a miscarriage of justice, the main question being whether substantial justice has been done. Considering the material, the court noted the similarity between the offence under revision and the applicant's other pending charges, and treated matters such as the applicant approaching a child far from home as relevant to gauging his tendencies. It reminded itself, citing authorities including PP v Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim and Letitia Bosman v PP, that pre-trial detention is not in itself opposed to the presumption of innocence, and that the right to a fair trial under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution is not absolute and may be qualified in accordance with law. Finding the reasons advanced for bail to be personal in nature, the court held that the applicant did not qualify for bail in this category of non-bailable offence, that the Sessions Court's refusal was correct and proper, and that there was no basis to intervene; it dismissed the revision application.