Public Prosecutor v Haris Fadzilah bin Abu Bakar & Anor

Appellant(s): Pendakwa Raya

Respondent(s):

• Haris Fadzilah Bin Abu Bakar
• Noryati Binti Abu Bakar

• YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz

• The second respondent was acquitted and discharged by the High Court of multiple charges under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007.
• The appellant filed eight appeals against the High Court's acquittal, but the notices of appeal could not be served on the second respondent for several mentions.
• The Court of Appeal initially struck out the eight appeals after the Deputy Public Prosecutor applied to withdraw them, but subsequently reinstated them upon the appellant's application and issued a warrant for the second respondent's arrest.

• Whether the Court of Appeal can strike out a criminal appeal filed by the appellant when the notice of appeal cannot be served on the respondent and the appellant does not apply to withdraw it.
• Whether the Court of Appeal has the power to reinstate an appeal which had been previously struck out.
• Whether the Court of Appeal can issue a warrant to arrest the respondent under s 56A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA) and grant bail pending the disposal of the appeal after reinstatement.

• The Court held that it has inherent power under r 105 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 (RCA) (2nd Limb) to strike out an appeal to prevent an abuse of process if the notice cannot be served and there is no reasonable prospect for the appeal to be heard.
• The Court ruled that it has inherent power under r 105 RCA (1st Limb) read with r 1A RCA to reinstate an appeal previously struck out, especially when the merits were not considered, to prevent injustice and ensure justice for both the prosecution and the accused.
• The Court affirmed its discretionary power under s 56A CJA to issue an arrest warrant and grant bail upon reinstatement of an appeal against acquittal, with the issuance of the warrant presumed regular under s 114(e) of the Evidence Act 1950. The Court granted bail to the second respondent with specific conditions, considering her employment and lack of flight risk.