Gobinath a/l Sinaya v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2023] 1 MLJ 24

Court of Appeal Putrajaya

Appeal against Court’s Decision to refuse Bail

1. The Appellants in this case were charged under section 130V and Chapter VIB of the Penal Code for allegedly being members of an organised criminal group. This charge is classified as a security offence under the First Schedule of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA). 
2. Before their trial at the Kuala Lumpur High Court began, the Appellants filed applications for bail, seeking release while awaiting trial. However, the High Court rejected their applications on 30 December 2021, citing that they failed to meet the strict requirements for bail under section 13 of SOSMA, which generally prohibits bail for individuals charged with security offences.
3. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellants filed four separate appeals to the Court of Appeal. At the outset of the appeal hearings, the Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the High Court’s refusal to grant bail was not an appealable decision under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA).

1. Whether the decision to refuse bail was not appealable.
2. Whether rights of parties were only finally disposed of at the end of trial.

1) Whether decision to refuse bail was not appealable

1. In this case, the Appellants applied to the High Court for bail while awaiting trial on charges of involvement in a criminal group under section 130V of the Penal Code. The High Court rejected the bail request on 30 December 2021. The Court of Appeal found that this decision did not amount to a final determination of the Appellants’ legal rights. Since the trial had yet to commence and was scheduled for February 2023, the Court held that the denial of bail was not a “decision” as defined under section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA). Therefore, it was not subject to appeal under section 50 of the CJA.
2. This interpretation aligns with the decision in Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor [1999] 1 MLJ 321; [1999] 1 CLJ 537, where it was held that only rulings which conclusively resolve the rights of the parties may be appealed. Bail, being discretionary under section 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is a form of temporary relief and not a final judgment. It may be granted, denied, or reconsidered depending on future developments. Because of this lack of finality, the refusal to grant bail is not considered an appealable decision under the Act.
3. The Court also referred to the Indian case of Babu Singh v State AIR [1978] SC 527, which supports the notion that a refusal of bail does not prevent future applications, especially when new facts or circumstances arise. The Indian Supreme Court noted that a denial of bail is not a conclusive adjudication and can be revisited at a later time. This reinforces the idea that bail decisions are inherently provisional, not final rulings on the parties’ rights.
4. The Appellants had also referred to other cases at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court which, they argued, suggested that bail decisions could be appealed. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that those decisions did not properly consider sections 3 and 50 of the CJA. As such, they were viewed as per incuriam, meaning the relevant legal provisions were not adequately addressed, and therefore, the decisions are not binding on the present court.

2) Whether rights of parties were only finally disposed at the end of trial

1. The Court addressed that the key issue in this case revolves around when the rights of the parties are considered to be finally resolved. The general position is that the parties’ rights are only conclusively determined at the end of the trial.
2. The Court referred to the case of  Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor [1999] 1 MLJ 321; [1999] 1 CLJ 537, which the Court made clear that a decision made before the trial concludes does not amount to a final ruling on a party’s rights. The Court emphasised that it is only the final outcome of the trial that effectively settles those rights.
3. This view was also upheld in Saad bin Abas & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1999] 1 MLJ 129, where the Court, through Lamin Mohd Yunus PCA, stressed that whether a decision is labelled as a judgment, ruling, or order, it must carry an element of finality before it qualifies for an appeal.
4. Referring to subsection 50(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court highlighted that the word “decision” must be read in light of the amended definition under section 3, introduced by Amendment Act A1031 of 1998. The revised definition states that “decision” refers to a judgment, sentence, or order, but excludes any ruling made during a trial that does not finally determine the rights of the parties.
5. Therefore, when the High Court directs an accused person to enter their defence, such a ruling is not considered final as it only becomes so after a verdict is delivered at the end of the defence stage.
6. The Court reaffirmed this position in Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Shahabuddin Mohamed Ali & Ors [2019] 1 MLJ 520; [2018] 8 CLJ 535, where it was noted that piecemeal appeals are generally discouraged. An appeal can only proceed where the decision in question is final, determines the parties’ legal positions, and resolves the main relief sought, leaving no substantive issues unresolved for trial. If the defence has not been heard yet, the matter is clearly still ongoing, and thus, the ruling cannot be regarded as a final decision.

1. The Court allowed the preliminary objection by the Respondents and dismissed the appeals, holding that the High Court’s decision to refuse bail was not appealable. 
2. The Court ruled that the denial of bail did not amount to a “decision” as defined in section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, as it did not finally determine the rights of the parties. Since the trial had not yet begun and the outcome of the case was still pending, the refusal to grant bail was considered an interlocutory ruling, not a final decision.
3. Therefore, under subsection 50(2) of the CJA, the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the Appellants’ appeals against the bail decision.

This case firmly establishes that a refusal to grant bail under SOSMA is not an appealable decision under Malaysian law unless it finally disposes of the accused’s rights which it does not. The Court reinforced the principle that interlocutory rulings, including those concerning bail, do not amount to appealable decisions unless expressly allowed by statute. This affirms that SOSMA’s strict bail provisions must be interpreted in line with the limited right to appeal under the CJA, and that courts have no inherent jurisdiction to hear appeals beyond what is explicitly permitted by law.