Chan Lee Lee

On the court record

A High Court prosecution practice combining criminal trials with the supervisory and revisionary oversight of the subordinate courts.

Chan Lee Lee appears for the prosecution in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), and the reported decisions describe a criminal practice with a strong emphasis on the High Court's supervisory and revisionary role over the courts below. Several matters engage the supervisory and revisionary power of the High Court and the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction — the mechanisms by which the High Court corrects errors in the subordinate courts outside the ordinary appeal route.

The substantive crime is varied. The reported catchwords engage the adverse-inference provision in "seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950" (section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950), Penal Code offences, and specific evidential and procedural provisions governing the conduct of a criminal trial. There is drug work under "seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952" (section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) alongside the revisionary matters, so the practice combines primary prosecution advocacy with argument about the reach of the High Court's corrective powers.

The revisionary and inherent-jurisdiction focus gives the practice a procedural character beyond the ordinary trial. In these matters the argument is whether the decision of the Magistrate or Sessions Court discloses an error the High Court should correct, and whether the High Court's inherent jurisdiction may properly be invoked where no other remedy is available. The evidential arguments, including the adverse inference where a party withholds evidence, run through both the trial and the revisionary work.

The overall profile is a prosecution practice in the High Court that combines the conduct of criminal trials with the supervisory and revisionary oversight of the subordinate courts. The matters turn on the reach of the High Court's inherent and revisionary jurisdiction, the evidential rules governing a criminal trial, and the Dangerous Drugs Act, rather than on civil or public-law questions, marking a practice engaged with the machinery of criminal justice as much as with its substance.