Criminal appeals may be struck out, with right of reinstatement

The Court of Appeal has ruled that it holds the authority to dismiss criminal appeals filed by the Public Prosecutor (PP) when there is no reasonable chance of them being heard. This decision was made unanimously by a three-member bench, with Justice Wong Kian Kheong writing the 28-page judgment. The ruling stems from two separate cases brought by the PP, with Justices Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz and K Muniandy also participating in the hearings.

In the first case, the prosecution failed to serve the notice of appeal on one of the accused, despite the matter being mentioned in court multiple times. As a result, the appeal was dismissed on May 18. In the second case, only one of the four accused was present in court when the appeal was set for hearing on April 10. Two other accused were subsequently arrested, while the notice of appeal could not be served on another. The appeal was struck out on June 18 after being called up for case management nine times.

According to Justice Wong, allowing an appeal to remain on the court's docket when there is no reasonable prospect of it being heard would constitute an abuse of process. The court emphasized that the prosecution was entitled to apply for the reinstatement of such appeals at a later stage, under Rule 105 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994. This provision preserves the inherent powers of the court to prevent any abuse of process.

The ruling also stated that the prosecution could seek to reinstate the appeals under Rule 105, in conjunction with Rule 1A, which mandates the court to act in a manner that avoids injustice. This is possible because the merits of the appeals have not yet been considered, and there is no limitation period that would prevent the revival of a criminal appeal.

The court further clarified that parties could not challenge the striking-out orders in the Federal Court, as those orders did not finally dispose of the substantive rights of all parties.