Ex-deputy chairman fails in review bid over order for fresh insider trading trial

Free Malaysia Today

a day ago

A Court of Appeal bench said there is no breach of natural justice in the findings of the previous panel.
PUTRAJAYA : The Court of Appeal has rejected a review application by a former executive deputy chairman of Malaysian Merchant Marine Bhd, whose insider trading case was ordered by another Court of Appeal bench to be reheard in the High Court.
A three-member bench chaired by Justice Ruzima Ghazali said Ramesh Rajaratnam's application had no merit because there was no breach of natural justice committed by the previous bench.
Ruzima said the previous panel, in its grounds of judgment, did not base its decision solely on several provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
'They addressed at length the points and authorities raised by parties. There is no breach of natural justice in the findings of the previous panel,' he said.
Justices Azmi Ariffin and Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz also heard the application.
Ramesh had been found guilty by a sessions court on three charges of insider trading, but the High Court set aside the decision upon his appeal.
His complaint was that the previous panel only looked into Sections 173, 180, 182(a) and 422 of the CPC in setting aside his acquittal and ordering a rehearing of his appeal before a new High Court judge.
He said this was not canvassed before the panel and only appeared in the grounds of judgment.
Ruzima said the threshold for review was high.
'As the apex court, as in this case, we have always been cautious when exercising the power of review of its earlier decision, as on the face of it, it goes against the principle of finality,' he said.
He said review powers of the court may only be exercised in exceptional cases if there had been a significant injustice or the applicant had no alternative remedy.
Lawyers Gurdial Singh Nijar and Abraham Au appeared for Ramesh in today's proceedings, while Hasley Tajudin, Law Wen Zhen and Danial Ariff Tung represented the Securities Commission Malaysia.
Last year, the Court of Appeal said the High Court, as an appellate court, could not decide an appeal solely on the trial court's errors or omissions.
Justice Wong Kian Kheong said the High Court had a judicial duty under Section 316 of the CPC to consider the merits of the case.
'(Otherwise), there would have been an abdication of the High Court's judicial duty,' he said in the judgment setting aside Ramesh's acquittal.
Wong said the High Court was also duty-bound to consider whether the errors or omissions by the trial court had caused a failure of justice as stated under Section 422 of the CPC.
On May 6, 2024, Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, now a Federal Court judge, led a three-member bench in allowing the prosecution's appeal, and remitted the matter to be heard by a new High Court judge.
The other member of the bench was Justice Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim.
Vazeer said even though there was judicial copying in the sessions court's grounds of decision, and it was a non-speaking judgment, the High Court committed a legal error in granting an acquittal.
Ramesh was charged in the Kuala Lumpur sessions court on April 29, 2015 with three counts of insider trading under Section 188(2)(a) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007.
On Sept 11, 2019, the trial judge convicted him on all three charges. and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment and a fine of RM3 million on each charge. The prison terms were ordered to run concurrently.
Insider trading carries a punishment of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years and a fine of not less than RM1 million.
On May 20, 2021, the High Court allowed Ramesh's appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence on all three charges.
At the Court of Appeal, the Securities Commission, with the public prosecutor's consent, decided to pursue its appeal on one charge only.