SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates that a trial court's failure to consider an accused's defence, however weak, is a misdirection that can render convictions for abetment of criminal breach of trust and money-laundering unsafe and warrant acquittal on appeal.

This Court of Appeal decision determines an appeal against convictions and sentences on four charges — two under the Penal Code and two under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA) — heard together with two companion appeals. The first Penal Code charge alleged that the appellant had abetted criminal breach of trust: that he abetted a person who, as an assistant treasurer entrusted with dominion over RM1,000,000.00 belonging to a youth political organisation, dishonestly misappropriated those funds, an offence under section 406 read with section 109 of the Penal Code. The remaining charges concerned dishonest misappropriation of property under sections 403 and 405 of the Penal Code and money-laundering under section 4(1)(b) of AMLA. The High Court had convicted the appellant on all charges. On appeal, the issues included whether the trial judge erred in failing to hold that no offence was made out even on the prosecution's unrebutted evidence, whether the credibility of the main prosecution witnesses had been assessed, and whether the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under section 405 had been properly appreciated. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had failed to consider the appellant's defence — a duty owed however weak the defence may appear — and held this to be a serious non-direction amounting to a misdirection warranting appellate intervention. Weighing the whole of the record, the Court unanimously concluded that the convictions entered on all the charges were unsafe. It allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted and discharged the appellant of all charges. The judgment illustrates that a trial court's failure to consider the defence, even a weak one, can render a conviction unsafe and justify appellate reversal of charges of abetment of criminal breach of trust and money-laundering.