Can courts create procedural requirements for document production?

Question

Accepted Answer

Courts Cannot Create Procedural Requirements for Document Production

Courts are generally unable to establish procedural requirements for document production where none are explicitly mandated by law. This principle was underscored in the case of Muhammad Shafee bin Md Abdullah v Public Prosecutor, where an applicant sought the production of a Letter of Appointment (LOA) for a Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor. The High Court ruled that there was no statutory obligation compelling the Public Prosecutor to produce such a document, and that the court itself could not invent procedural rules to accommodate the request.
No Statutory Mandate for LOA Production

In the Muhammad Shafee bin Md Abdullah case, the applicant requested a copy of the LOA for Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram as a Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor, arguing it was necessary to challenge the legality of his appointment. The applicant cited Section 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and pointed out that unlike other appointments, Sri Ram's had not been gazetted. The applicant also referred to a previous case where an LOA was exhibited. However, the Public Prosecutor contended that the applicant was not legally entitled to the LOA and that its production was not a matter of right. The Public Prosecutor further argued that Section 376(3) CPC and relevant chapters of the Code did not require the tendering of such an LOA in court.
Courts Are Limited to Enforcing Existing Law

The High Court Judge, Collin Lawrence Sequerah, affirmed that there was no provision mandating the Public Prosecutor to produce the LOA. The judge stated that courts cannot create procedural requirements that do not exist, referencing the principle established in Lee Kew Sang v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri & 2 ors. This precedent established that it is not the function of the courts to legislate or create rules; if no procedural requirement exists, there can be no non-compliance. The court's role is to enforce existing legal mandates, not to establish new ones.
Specific Documents Mandated for Production

The ruling clarified that the only documents legally required to be produced are those specified under Section 51A of the CPC. These include a copy of the information filed under Section 107 CPC concerning the offence, any document intended to be tendered as prosecution evidence, and a written statement of favourable facts to the defence signed by the Public Prosecutor or their representative. The LOA in question was determined not to fall within these categories. Therefore, the request for its production was deemed legally misconceived.
Past Practice Does Not Override Legal Requirements

The applicant's reliance on past practice, where LOAs were exhibited, was also dismissed. The court found merit in the submission that established practice alone cannot serve as a basis for the production of a document if such production is not mandated by procedural law. The judge concluded that the production of any document must be pursuant to existing procedural law, not merely based on precedent or custom. Consequently, the applicant's request for the LOA was dismissed.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Can courts create procedural requirements for document production?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends