Meeting With The Managing Judge Of The Kuala Lumpur Criminal Courts Royal Malaysian Police, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission And Malaysian Prison Department

Dear Members of the Kuala Lumpur Bar,

On 17 September 2025, the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee Criminal Law Practice Committee (“KLBC CLPC”) held a meeting with the Managing Judge of the Kuala Lumpur Criminal Courts (“MJ”), Royal Malaysian Police (“PDRM”), Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“SPRM”) and Malaysian Prison Department (“MPD”). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss matters concerning the administration of criminal justice in the Kuala Lumpur Court.

The KLBC CLPC was represented by the KLBC CLPC Chairperson Rajsurian Pillai, Chairperson of Bar Council Legal Aid Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Morhaneraj Rajakumaran, the Assistant Executive Director of the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Jeevanathan Anggapan and Executive Officers, Noratikah Shaharudin and Rosilawati Ibrahim.

We set out below the matters discussed during the said meeting:

Option for Lawyers to obtain Appeal Records in Softcopy

There was a proposal for the Court to provide lawyers with a softcopy of the Appeal Records. The Court agreed with this proposal and will provide lawyers and Deputy Public Prosecutors with the option to obtain the Appeal Records in softcopy.

Members who wish to receive the Appeal Records in softcopy are required to submit their request to the Court, preferably when filing the Notice of Appeal. The softcopy option will only be provided upon request and no hardcopy will be provided.

Case Management for Appeals will be conducted via Zoom at the High Court

The CLPC has received feedback from members of a preference for case management of appeal cases to be conducted via Zoom, similar to the Court of Appeal and Federal Court. The proposal was conveyed to the Court during the meeting.

It was informed that case management may be conducted via Zoom at the discretion of the respective Judges, but that the Judges generally prefer to conduct the same physically as the accused is required to be present in Court. The Court nonetheless acknowledged that online case managements would save time and ease logistical challenges.

The MJ informed that the Court has issued a Practice Direction on 4 September 2025 allowing online criminal proceedings in the Court of Appeal and Federal Court, and suggested that this could be extended to the High Court with the Chief Judge of Malaya’s endorsement.

The Court will take this proposal into consideration and engage with the High Court Criminal Judges before making any decision.

Passport verification for foreign accused

The issue of accused foreigners being unable to obtain bail despite being charged with bailable offences was deliberated at the meeting.

It was highlighted that there are instances where accused foreigners charged with non-immigration criminal offences such as theft, fighting and drunk driving were not granted bail due to pending passport verification and/or the Investigating Officer (“IO”) not providing complete particulars of the accused.

The police informed that the Immigration Department requires 3 to 15 working days, depending on the number of accused involved, to complete the passport verification.

We were informed that the Court will further engage with the Immigration Department to address this issue.

Bail Procedures for Bailable Offences in the Magistrates’ Court

There is feedback that several Magistrates have granted bail without the bailor being present, while some Magistrates refused to grant bail in the absence of the bailor. In situations where no bailor is present, the Court does not set the bail, which leads to accused, particularly those without lawyer’s representation, being required to remain in prison for extended periods.

The MJ clarified that bailable offences should not be treated as non-bailable. He acknowledged that differing Court practices have created disparities and stated that the issue will be discussed at the Magistrates’ meeting.

There was also concern raised by the MPD that current warrants no longer state the bail amounts and trial dates, making it difficult for the MPD to assist families. The MPD also shared that the accused will be treated as prisoners until bail is processed.

The MJ noted that this is a serious issue that may cause trauma to the accused and increase the burden on prisons. The MJ directed that Courts must set bail for all bailable offences and the warrant template must be amended to include the bail details. Further, the PDRM must ensure that IOs inform families about the charge.

Document S51 and S51A of the Criminal Procedure Code

There was a proposal for the SPRM and the PDRM to provide S51 and S51A documents via pendrive transfer, cloud storage or any other relevant platform for the convenience for all parties as most of the laptops or computers no longer have CD drive.

The proposal was supported by the Court as it would also help to smoothen Court proceedings. The SPRM and the PDRM were requested to bring the proposal to the relevant department for consideration.

Uploading of Recordings of Court Proceedings on social media

The Court noticed that some lawyers have been posting the recordings of the Court proceedings and Court-related cases on social media. The MJ emphasised that such uploads are prohibited and could impact the appeal process.

Members are implored to observe the Court’s directions and not to post any pictures or videos of Court proceedings on any of their social media sites or anywhere else on the world wide web.

The Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee takes the view that non-compliance with the same may result in a complaint being lodged with the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board.

Rajsurian Pillai
Chairperson
Criminal Law Practice Committee