DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN TUN HJ ABD RAZAK v 1. ) Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Bin Mohd Salleh 2. ) KOMISIONER JENERAL PENJARA 3. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 4. ) LEMBAGA PENGAMPUNAN BAGI WILAYAH-WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, LABUAN DAN PUTRAJAYA 5. ) MENTERI DI JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI (UNDANG-UNDANG DAN REFORMASI INSTITUSI) 6. ) KETUA PENGARAH BAHAGIAN HAL EHWAL UNDANG-UNDANG DI JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI 7. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Case Significance

Illustrates the low threshold at the leave stage of judicial review, with the Court of Appeal by majority holding that an arguable case concerning an addendum order and the duty of candour of public authorities warranted remitting the matter to the High Court for a substantive hearing.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal, at the leave stage of judicial review, arising from an application connected with a purported addendum order said to bear on the conditions of the appellant's imprisonment. The appellant had applied to the High Court for leave to bring judicial review against a group of public respondents — including the Minister of Home Affairs, the Commissioner General of Prisons, the Attorney General, the Pardons Board for the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, a Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, the Director General of the Legal Affairs Division, and the Government of Malaysia — seeking, among other things, relief in the nature of mandamus in respect of the addendum order. The proceedings engaged Order 55 rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012, provisions of the Courts of Judicature Act and Rules of the Court of Appeal, Article 42 of the Federal Constitution concerning the pardons power, and section 44(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1950. A significant strand of argument concerned the duty of candour owed by public authorities to assist the court by providing complete and accurate information about the relevant facts. The Court of Appeal, by a majority, held that the appellant had raised an arguable case that the terms of the addendum order had aggrieved his interests and rights, such that the matter ought to proceed beyond the leave threshold. The majority allowed the appeal and ordered the matter to be remitted to the High Court for the hearing of the substantive judicial review application. One member of the panel dissented and would have dismissed the appeal, upholding the refusal of leave. The decision illustrates the low threshold at the leave stage of judicial review and the role of the duty of candour of public authorities, while confirming that questions going to the substance are for determination at the full hearing.