Nik Elin Zurina binti Nik Abdul Rashid & Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan [2024] 2 AMR 361, FC

Constitutional law – Legislation – Validity of – Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (I) Enactment 2019 ("the Enactment") – Validity of various sections of the Enactment ("the impugned sections") – Original jurisdiction of Federal Court invoked – Whether petitioners lacked locus standi – Whether petition maintainable – Whether Kelantan State proper and/or sufficient party to petition – Whether impugned sections unconstitutional in light of item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule to the Federal Constitution – Whether Kelantan State has power to promulgate the sections – Whether impugned sections could only be declared invalid and not void – Federal Constitution, Articles 4(1), (3), (3)(a), (b), (4), 11(4), 121(1A), 128, 128(1), (1)(a), 162, Ninth Schedule, List I, items 4, 4(e)(i), (k), (l), 7, 8, 8(f), 14, List II, item 1, List III – Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (I) Enactment 2019, ss 11,11(1), 13, 14, 16, 17, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 37(1)(b), 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47,48

Islamic law – Legislation – Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (I) Enactment 2019 ("the Enactment") – Validity of various sections of the Enactment ("the impugned sections") – Original jurisdiction of Federal Court invoked – Whether petitioners lacked locus standi – Whether petition maintainable – Whether Kelantan State proper and/or sufficient party to petition – Whether impugned sections unconstitutional in light of item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule to the Federal Constitution – Whether Kelantan State has power to promulgate the sections – Whether impugned sections could only be declared invalid and not void – Federal Constitution, Articles 4(1), (3), (3)(a), (b), (4), 11(4), 121(1A), 128, 128(1), (1)(a), 162, Ninth Schedule, List I, items 4, 4(e)(i), (k), (l), 7, 8, 8(f), 14, List II, item 1, List III – Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (I) Enactment 2019, ss 11, 11(1), 13, 14, 16, 17, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 37(1)(b), 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48

Public Prosecutor v Wanida Chinnabut [2024] 2 AMR 469, HC

Criminal procedure – Revision – Appeal against – Accused's application to be supplied with her husband's statement recorded under s 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("CPC") and transcripts of her children's interviews ("documents") allowed – Accused's husband initially intended to be prosecution witness – Whether fear and risk of witness tampering by defence justified – Whether s 124 of the Evidence Act 1950 applicable – Whether documents privileged documents – Whether requirements under s 51 of the CPC fulfilled by defence – Whether doctrine of stare decisis applied correctly – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Child Act 2001, s 31(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, ss 51, 112, 323 – Evidence Act 1950, s 124

Criminal law – Offences in relation to health and welfare of children – Neglect – Accused's application to be supplied with her husband's statement recorded under s 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("CPC") and transcripts of her children's interviews ("documents") allowed – Accused's husband initially intended to be prosecution witness – Whether fear and risk of witness tampering by defence justified – Whether s 124 of the Evidence Act 1950 applicable – Whether documents privileged documents – Whether requirements under s 51 of the CPC fulfilled by defence – Whether doctrine of stare decisis applied correctly – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Child Act 2001, s 31(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, ss 51, 112, 323 – Evidence Act 1950, s 124