PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA

On the court record

Illustrates how the courts define the Attorney General's role in judicial review and contempt and balance prosecutorial and executive discretion against the availability of public-law review.

The Peguam Negara Malaysia (the Attorney General of Malaysia) appears in this corpus in the office's constitutional roles as public prosecutor, principal legal adviser and guardian of the public interest, litigating as respondent, appellant, applicant and defendant. A recurring theme is the Attorney General's role at the leave stage of judicial review — the right conferred by Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 to be heard, and the extent of any duty owed at that stage — examined in proceedings challenging prosecutorial and executive decisions. The corpus includes the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction, where the Attorney General has applied under Order 52 of the Rules of Court in respect of publications said to scandalise the court, and the setting aside of leave granted for such proceedings. Other matters engage the Attorney General as respondent in judicial review of executive decisions under a range of statutes, including a second detention order under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1952 and the seizure of property by the police under the Dangerous Drugs Act, and in civil-procedure disputes about the striking out of amended pleadings. Because the office combines prosecutorial discretion with the representation of the Government and the public interest, several decisions concern the scope and reviewability of the Attorney General's own powers. The matters are decided across the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. Collectively the decisions in which the Attorney General is a party illustrate how the courts define the office's role in judicial review and contempt, and how they balance prosecutorial and executive discretion against the availability of public-law review. The corpus also reflects the tension between the finality of a prosecutorial or executive decision and the individual's access to judicial review, with the court examining in each case whether the complaint truly concerns the legality of the decision-making process. Across these decisions the Attorney General appears as the office whose powers are both exercised and, in appropriate cases, subjected to the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts.