Loh Suk Hwa

On the court record

Loh Suk Hwa appears in the corpus across civil strike-out appeals and appellate criminal defence, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). Two High Court matters, appearing for the defendant in one and the respondent in the other, arose from claims against the same company and concerned the striking out of a writ and statement of claim under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 — the provision that allows a pleading to be struck out where it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or is otherwise an abuse of process — in the context of an alleged breach of a sale and purchase agreement. A third matter, in the Court of Appeal and appearing for the appellant, was an appeal in a corruption prosecution under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009: a charge of receiving gratification under 'seksyen 16(a)(B)' (section 16(a)(B)) of that Act, engaging the statutory presumption in 'seksyen 50(1)' (section 50(1)) and the treatment of the evidence of an accomplice or agent provocateur under 'seksyen 52' (section 52). The issues the court identified were whether the elements of the offence under section 16(a)(B) had been proved by the prosecution, the credibility of a key prosecution witness, whether the accused had succeeded in rebutting the presumption that arose, and whether a particular document was admissible under section 41A governing documentary evidence. The corruption appeal is a reminder that in prosecutions under the anti-corruption legislation the statutory presumption can shift a heavy burden onto the accused, so that the case often turns not on whether the prosecution proved every element from the outset but on whether the accused succeeded in rebutting a presumption that arose once the receipt of gratification was shown, and on how far the court is prepared to rely on the evidence of an accomplice. Across the appearances the practice combines the disciplined use of the strike-out jurisdiction to dispose of unsustainable civil claims with appellate defence in anti-corruption prosecutions, where the statutory presumptions and the reliability of accomplice evidence are frequently decisive.