The Attorney General of Malaysia v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak

Appellant(s): Peguam Negara Malaysia

Respondent(s): Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Hj Abd Razak

• YAA Tan Sri Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim
• YA Dato' Zabariah Binti Mohd Yusof
• YA Datuk Hanipah Binti Farikullah

• The respondent, a serving prisoner, sought judicial review to confirm and enforce an alleged "Addendum Order" from the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong for home arrest, supplementary to a partial pardon granted by the Pardons Board.
• The High Court dismissed the respondent's application for leave for judicial review, primarily due to reliance on hearsay evidence and the non-fulfillment of mandamus requirements.
• The Court of Appeal subsequently allowed the respondent's appeal, admitting the Addendum Order as new evidence, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Federal Court, where the appellant conceded the Addendum Order's existence.

• The interpretation and application of Rule 7(3A) of the Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 (RCA 1994) concerning the admission of fresh or additional evidence at the appellate level, specifically its relationship with the common law principles established in *Ladd v Marshall*.
• Whether Rule 7(3A) of the RCA 1994 imposes a higher threshold for admitting new evidence, particularly regarding the "determining influence" versus "important influence" criteria.
• The justiciability of introducing fresh evidence in judicial review proceedings that could potentially challenge a decision of the Pardons Board.

• The Court held that an application for leave for judicial review, while interlocutory in form, is not interlocutory for the purpose of admitting evidence under Rule 7(2) of the RCA 1994, as it determines the applicant's rights, thus requiring leave for new evidence like the Addendum Order.
• Rule 7(3A) of the RCA 1994 "encapsulates" the principles of *Ladd v Marshall*, and the Court found that the respondent satisfied the requirements for admitting the Addendum Order as new evidence, including the "determining influence" criterion.
• The Federal Court dismissed the appellant's appeals, allowing the Addendum Order to be admitted and remitting the case to the High Court for the substantive hearing of the judicial review, deferring the issue of the Addendum Order's validity and justiciability to that stage.