Ann Joo Steel Berhad v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the limited scope of the High Court's criminal revisionary jurisdiction over a Sessions Court's refusal to strike out a charge under section 173(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code: where a charge under section 15(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 complies with sections 152 to 154 and does not imperil a fair trial, the revision fails.

This High Court decision at Butterworth, Penang, delivered by Judge Fathiyah binti Idris, concerns a criminal revision brought by a corporate accused challenging the framing of a workplace-safety charge. The applicant, Ann Joo Steel Berhad, had been charged in the Sessions Court with an offence under seksyen 15(1) Akta Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan 1994 (section 15(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994), which imposes the general duty of an employer to ensure, so far as practicable, the safety, health and welfare at work of its employees, punishable on conviction under section 19 of the same Act. The charge arose from an incident on 5 September 2023 at the applicant's factory in Prai. The applicant had applied in the Sessions Court under seksyen 173(g) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (section 173(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code), contending that the charge was defective, incomplete or without basis; when that application was dismissed, it invoked the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction.

The court declined to interfere. It held that the charge against the applicant was neither defective nor vague, and that it complied with the requirements of sections 152, 153 and 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code governing the form and contents of a charge. It found no violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial, and concluded that the decision of the Sessions Court Judge was regular and disclosed no error justifying revisionary intervention. Emphasising that the revisionary jurisdiction is exercised sparingly to correct clear errors of law or procedure rather than to conduct a pre-trial mini-trial, the court held the revision to be without merit and dismissed it. The judgment illustrates the standard a corporate accused must meet to impugn a charge under the occupational-safety legislation before trial, and the deference the High Court shows to a Sessions Court's case-management rulings on the sufficiency of a charge.