TAN HOO ENG v Ng Siew Wee

a-05-561-12-2022 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 22 May 2024 • A-05-561-12/2022 • 22 min read

9 cases cited (0 SG, 9 foreign)

Catchwords

Rayuan Jenayah - Rayuan perayu terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang menolak permohonan perayu untuk memindahkan kes dari Mahkamah Sesyen ke Mahkamah Tinggi - Responden mengemukakan notis bantahan awal iaitu keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi bukanlah keputusan muktamad yang memutuskan hak perayu dan tidak boleh dirayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan - Responden mengatakan rayuan perayu adalah tidak kompeten dan harus dibatalkan - Perayu kemudiannya memfailkan Notis Usul untuk kebenaran memohon Perintah Pengkomitan terhadap Timbalan Pendakwa Raya - Mahkamah Rayuan bersetuju dengan responden bahawa keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut bukanlah keputusan muktamad yang memutuskan hak perayu dan tidak boleh dirayu - Rayuan perayu adalah tidak kompeten dan dibatalkan - Tidak ada asas untuk perayu memohon Perintah Pengkomitan - Notis Usul perayu untuk kebenaran memohon Perintah Pengkomitan terhadap Timbalan Pendakwa Raya dibatalkan - Seksyen 417 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Akta 593) - seksyen 3, 22 dan 50(1)(a) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964.

Judges (3)

Azman bin Abdullah Coram Azmi bin Ariffin Coram Hadhariah bt Syed Ismail Delivered

Counsel (8)

Attorney General's Chambers Firm Bachan & Kartar Firm Afina binti Abdul Hakim Counsel Appellant Amir Faliq bin Mohamad Jamil Counsel Appellant Datin Asmah binti Musa Counsel Prosecution Gobindeep Singh a/l Gurbachan Singh Counsel Appellant Gurbachan Singh a/l Bagawan Singh Counsel Appellant Mohd. Fuad bin Abdul Aziz Counsel Prosecution

Parties (2)

Ng Siew Wee Respondent Tan Hoo Eng Appellant

Case Significance

Tan Hoo Eng v Public Prosecutor is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated May 22, 2024 (citation: a-05-561-12-2022). <p>Tan Hoo Eng, charged with various offences in the Ipoh Sessions Court, sought leave to cite Deputy Public Prosecutor Ng Siew Wee for contempt of the Court of Appeal for allegedly misleading the court regarding a preliminary objection in a transfer application. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no basis for the contempt allegation as the DPP had the right to maintain the preliminary objection that was ultimately upheld. The Court held the application was incompetent and no The panel comprised Azman bin Abdullah, Azmi bin Ariffin and Hadhariah bt Syed Ismail, with Hadhariah bt Syed Ismail delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Afina binti Abdul Hakim (counsel for appellant), Amir Faliq bin Mohamad Jamil (counsel for appellant), Datin Asmah binti Musa (prosecution counsel), Gobindeep Singh a/l Gurbachan Singh (counsel for appellant), Gurbachan Singh a/l Bagawan Singh (counsel for appellant), Mohd. Fuad bin Abdul Aziz (prosecution counsel).

Key issues: (1) whether subordinate courts have the “jurisdiction” and the “power” to decide constitutional law issues;.

Summary

Tan Hoo Eng, charged with various offences in the Ipoh Sessions Court, sought leave to cite Deputy Public Prosecutor Ng Siew Wee for contempt of the Court of Appeal for allegedly misleading the court regarding a preliminary objection in a transfer application. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no basis for the contempt allegation as the DPP had the right to maintain the preliminary objection that was ultimately upheld. The Court held the application was incompetent and not within the scope of criminal appellate jurisdiction under the Courts of Judicature Act.

What was the outcome of Tan Hoo Eng v Public Prosecutor?

<p>Tan Hoo Eng, charged with various offences in the Ipoh Sessions Court, sought leave to cite Deputy Public Prosecutor Ng Siew Wee for contempt of th...