Pendakwa Raya v Mohd Razin bin Razali & Ors

Appellant(s): Pendakwa Raya

Respondent(s):

• Mohd Razin Bin Razali
• Mohamad Faizal Bin Ahmad Zaki

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• Dato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing

• The five respondents were charged with migrant smuggling under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (AATIPSM), with their cases ordered for joint trial in the High Court.
• The prosecution applied to have a protected witness (PW1) testify in a special manner under the Witness Protection Act 2009 and the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA), which the High Court initially allowed after an inquiry.
• During PW1's examination-in-chief, the defence objected, arguing that PW1's identity had been revealed through the testimony, leading the High Court to reverse its earlier order and direct PW1 to testify in open Court as an ordinary witness.

• Whether the High Court's decision to revoke the special testimony order for the protected witness was an appealable "decision" within the meaning of Sections 3 and 50 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA).
• Whether the High Court erred in finding that the protected witness's identity had been sufficiently disclosed to negate the need for special protection under SOSMA and the Witness Protection Act.
• Whether the High Court's decision to order open-court testimony for the protected witness undermined the legislative intent and purpose of the Witness Protection Act 2009.

• The Court held that the High Court's order was an appealable "decision" as it finally disposed of the rights of the parties concerning the protected witness's mode of testimony, rejecting the respondents' preliminary objection.
• The Court found that the High Court erred in concluding that the witness's identity was revealed merely by disclosing their role in the incident, emphasizing that no personal identifying details were disclosed.
• The Court ruled that the High Court wrongly relied on a dissenting judgment, which carries no legal force, and that its decision contradicted Parliament's clear intention to protect witnesses under the Witness Protection Act 2009.
• The Court allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the High Court's order for open-court testimony and reinstating the original order for the protected witness to give evidence in a special and closed manner.