HOME

“To reiterate, it was held by the Court of Appeal that recantation “involved two-staged application where leave of the court is sought to recall the witness. Sufficient and satisfactory reasons must be shown for the recall of the witness, and where satisfied, the witness is recalled and the recantation takes place.” The Court of Appeal stated further in the later part of its judgment that, “The court must never allow any witness, who has already testified under oath to tell the truth, to change their stance without credible, satisfactory explanation; otherwise, the administration of justice will be seriously undermined.”

“While it is not clear what is the exact basis for the Court of Appeal in coming to a conclusion on the two-stage application as a procedure in recantation, we observed that the Court of Appeal made such statement immediately after referring to the dictionary meaning of recantation, which was argued by Gary as an error as that definition is not a legal definition. That said, the Court of Appeal had also referred to and cited foreign authorities when dealing with the issue of recantation.”

“In this regard, we agree that recantation or retraction of evidence occurring during the trial is a matter for assessment of evidence of the alleged unreliable or untruthful witness. As both parties before us had acknowledged that there is no established rule of evidence or procedure relating to recantation in our domestic law thus far, the Court of Appeal's decision on the two-stage application procedure; and the effect of a recantation would be the total rejection of the evidence of the recanted witness, are incorrect. On the contrary, and with respect, great care and scrutiny ought to be exercised in assessing the credibility and the cogency of the evidence following a recantation.” - Per Abang Iskandar PCA in Teoh Kiang Hong v. Theow Say Kow & Other Appeals [2025] 2 CLJ 683

“Prosecutors have made it a practice to set out the sentence applicable to the offence in the charge form, possibly for convenience. In this case, as in many cases, the prosecution has set out the punishment for the offence in the charge form. The sentence on the whipping was wrong, as no less than ten strokes of whipping are to be prescribed, whether the accused is eventually convicted or chose to plead guilty.”

“The pertinent issue is whether it is required to state the sentence applicable for the offence in the charge. There is no requirement for the sentence concerning the offence to be stated in the charge under the CPC, nor is this set out in Form 27 in the CPC. It is, therefore, optional for the sentence of the offence to be stated in the charge form, for it does not form part of the charge. It is simply not required. A charge, therefore, could not be deemed defective if the particulars of the sentence were not set out or, if set out, is erroneous.” - Per Mohamed Zaini Mazlan JCA in PP v. Sayed Shahriman Wan Ahmad Hussein [2025] 1 CLJ 93