SUFIAN BIN SULAIMAN v Pendakwa Raya

w-09-204-08-2020 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 23 February 2025 • W-09-204-08/2020 • 28 min read

6 cases cited (0 SG, 6 foreign)

Outcome

Kesimpulan [50] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang diberikan di atas, kami sebulat suara memerintahkan seperti berikut: (i) Rayuan pemohon untuk permohonan semakan keputusan yang diberikan oleh Panel Mahkamah Rayuan Pertama pada 27 September 2023 berkaitan dengan Rayuan Jenayah No: W-09-204-08/2020 ditolak; dan (ii) Perintah berkenaan sabitan dan hukuman oleh.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (w-09-204-08-2020). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Kaedah 105 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Rayuan 1994 - Seksyen 307 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Procedure for appeal - Seksyen 308 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Transmission of appeal record - Seksyen 60(1) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 - Powers of Court of Appeal - Seksyen 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Akta 593) - Seksyen 7 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue - Seksyen 7 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Seksyen 167 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Seksyen 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Seksyen 60 (1) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Criminal Procedure Evidence

Judges (3)

Ahmad Kamal bin Md. Shahid Coram Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim Coram Azmi bin Ariffin Delivered

Counsel (7)

Mustafa Ling & Co. Firm Ee Gen You Counsel Appellant Eyu Ghim Siang Counsel Prosecution Hisyam Teh Poh Tek Counsel Appellant Kee Wei Lon Counsel Appellant Muhammad Amin Bin Othman Counsel Appellant Siti Sumaiyah Binti Ahmad Jaafar Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Sufian bin Sulaiman Appellant

Case Significance

Illustrates the finality of a concluded criminal appeal and the limited scope for reopening it under Rule 105 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994: the court's power to revisit its own determined criminal decision is narrowly confined and is not a vehicle for re-arguing the merits, so the application was dismissed and the earlier conviction and sentence maintained.

This Court of Appeal decision, delivered in a judgment by Azmi bin Ariffin JCA (sitting with Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim and Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid JJCA), concerns an application invoking the court's powers in a criminal matter that had already been concluded on appeal, and the finality of a criminal appellate decision. The applicant had been prosecuted in the Sessions Court and had pursued his appeals through the High Court to the Court of Appeal, which had determined his conviction and sentence. He then brought the present application, framed by reference to Rule 105 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 and provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 governing criminal appeals — including section 307 (procedure for appeal), section 308 (transmission of the appeal record), section 422 (curable irregularities) of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 60(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 — and sought, in substance, to reopen the matter, relying among other things on section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950 concerning facts that are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application. It approached the matter mindful of the principle that a criminal appeal, once heard and determined by the Court of Appeal, is final, and that the court's power to revisit its own concluded criminal decision is confined and exercised only in narrowly defined circumstances rather than as a means of re-arguing the merits. Having considered the grounds advanced, the court was not persuaded that any proper basis had been shown to disturb its earlier determination. It accordingly dismissed the application relating to the criminal appeal and directed that the order in respect of the conviction and sentence made by the Court of Appeal on 27 September 2023 be maintained. The judgment illustrates the finality of a concluded criminal appeal and the limited scope for reopening it under Rule 105 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994.

Summary

The applicant was convicted of rape under s.376(1) Penal Code and sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment, later reduced to 10 years by the first Court of Appeal panel. He applied for a review of the first panel's decision on conviction, arguing misdirection. The second Court of Appeal panel unanimously dismissed the review application, finding no failure of justice as the first panel had given full opportunity to argue all issues.

What did the applicant seek and on what basis?

Having exhausted his appeals up to the Court of Appeal, the applicant brought a further application framed by reference to Rule 105 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 and provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 governing criminal appeals, seeking in substance to reopen his concluded criminal matter, relying also on section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950.

Why did the Court of Appeal dismiss the application?

The court held that a criminal appeal once determined by the Court of Appeal is final and that its power to revisit its own concluded decision is confined to narrow circumstances, not a means of re-arguing the merits. Not persuaded that any proper basis had been shown, it dismissed the application and directed that its earlier order on conviction and sentence, dated 27 September 2023, be maintained.

Statutes Cited

Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)

Cases Cited (6)

MY (6)

[1965] 1 MLJ 40 [1994] 2 CLJ 151 [1996] 1 CLJ 705 [2001] 1 CLJ 381 [2006] 2 CLJ 129 [2021] 6 CLJ 1

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (w-09-204-08-2020)