Yong Choo Kiong v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Yong Choo Kiong

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YAA Datuk Seri Utama Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh
• YA Dato' Nordin Bin Hassan
• YA Datuk Hanipah Binti Farikullah

• The appellant was convicted by the High Court for rape under section 376(1) of the Penal Code, sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment and 2 strokes of the whip, which the Court of Appeal later reduced to 8 years' imprisonment while maintaining the whipping.
• The prosecution's case relied heavily on the victim's (PW15) testimony, corroborated by other witnesses (PW3, PW16), medical evidence (PW5), her personal diary, and CCTV footage placing the appellant alone with the victim.
• The trial judge allowed an application under section 265A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and section 20(1)(a) and (b) of the Witness Protection Act 2009 for the identities of PW15 and PW16 not to be disclosed.

• Whether the invocation of section 265A of the CPC for witness protection was invalid or unconstitutional, particularly regarding the denial of the appellant's right to be heard at the inquiry stage.
• Whether the trial judge and the Court of Appeal failed to comply with section 182A of the CPC by not considering the appellant’s statement under section 112 of the CPC (D107).
• Whether the lower Courts erred in finding the victim's evidence credible and sufficiently corroborated, and whether the appellant's defence was adequately considered.

• This Court held that section 265A of the CPC is valid and constitutional, as it was validly passed by Parliament and explicitly authorises the absence of the accused and counsel at the inquiry stage, thus not infringing Articles 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution or natural justice principles.
• The Court found no non-compliance with section 182A of the CPC, as the substance of the appellant's section 112 statement was reiterated in his oral evidence, which was considered, and exculpatory statements are not evidence of facts.
• The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower Courts on the victim's credibility and sufficient corroboration (distress, police report, diary, medical evidence, opportunity), and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.