Datin Seri Rosmah Binti Mansor v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Datin Seri Rosmah Binti Mansor

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Ahmad Zaidi Bin Ibrahim
• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin

• The appellant was charged with three counts of corruption under Section 16(a)(A) of the MACC Act 2009, related to a solar project for rural Sarawak schools, and was undergoing a joint trial before a High Court Judge.
• Days before the High Court Judge was scheduled to deliver his decision, the appellant filed a recusal application, alleging that a 71-page judgment for her case had been prepared by a third party and leaked online, causing her to lose confidence in the judge's impartiality.
• The High Court Judge dismissed the recusal application and proceeded to deliver his decision in the main criminal cases, leading to the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of the recusal application.

• Whether the High Court Judge erred in denying the appellant's request for an adjournment to respond to the respondent's affidavit in the recusal application.
• Whether the High Court Judge erred in his finding that the leaked 71-page document was merely a draft opinion from the Research Unit and not a judgment prepared for him, and if this finding was illogical.
• Whether the High Court Judge erred by failing to apply the "real danger of bias" test, or if the appellant successfully demonstrated a "real danger of bias" on the part of the High Court Judge.

• The Court of Appeal found no error in the High Court Judge's refusal to grant an adjournment, as the recusal application primarily involved questions of law, and the respondent had opted to argue on legal principles without relying on their affidavit.
• The Court agreed with the respondent that the articles forming the basis of the recusal application, authored by a person whose credibility was challenged, constituted unreliable hearsay evidence, and the appellant failed to provide cogent and admissible evidence.
• The Court, conducting an objective re-hearing, found no "real danger of bias" on the part of the High Court Judge, noting the significant differences between the leaked document and the judge's actual judgment, and the appellant's delay in seeking recusal throughout the 2.5-year trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's decision was upheld.