Short answer: No.

This year, our Managing Partner, Zander Lim had the opportunity to appear before the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya, presided by YA Datuk Supang Lian, YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal Binti Abdul Aziz, and YA Tuan Muniandy Kannyappan, in Zolkapli Bin Long @ Mohamad v PP.

The position is settled at the trial level. In Sathya Veloo v PP [2022] MLJU 817, the Federal Court held that a trial judge is not required to provide grounds when calling for the accused to enter his defence.

However, what remained unanswered was this:

Does the same apply to the High Court when hearing an appeal and reversing an acquittal by ordering the accused to enter his defence?

For the first time, this precise issue arose. The question was whether the High Court, having allowed the Prosecution’s appeal and reversed the acquittal, is required to provide grounds pursuant to section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Appellant argued that section 319(2) mandates the High Court to state the grounds upon which the appeal is allowed or the decision of the trial court is varied. A failure to do so, it was said, would occasion a failure of justice or prejudice.

Our position was that section 319 cannot be read in isolation.

Instead, it must be read together with section 316 of the CPC.

Under section 316(1)(a), when hearing an appeal against an acquittal, the High Court may allow the appeal if sufficient grounds are shown and may:

(1) reverse the order; or
(2) order a retrial.

In this case, the High Court reversed the acquittal and ordered the accused to enter his defence.

Crucially, section 316 does not require the High Court to provide grounds when making such an order.

Once the acquittal is reversed, the matter is remitted to the trial court for continuation at the defence stage. At that point, it is for the trial judge to evaluate the totality of the evidence and determine whether the charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial judge is not at liberty to revisit the prosecution’s case at the prima facie stage.

The Court of Appeal agreed.

The takeaway is simple:

An order to enter defence, whether at trial or on appeal, does not carry an obligation to provide detailed grounds. It remains a determination at the prima facie stage, not a final finding of guilt.