TAN SENG HUAT v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2025] MLJU 1620
There is a common assumption that as long as a charge exists, a trial must proceed. As long as allegations are made and documents are questioned, the accused must answer in court. In reality, it is not only what is alleged that matters — how a charge is framed can determine whether the process is fair or fundamentally flawed from the very beginning.
This case revolves around a criminal charge of forgery. The prosecution alleged that the accused was involved in several acts of falsifying documents. However, the way the charge was drafted created a serious problem — multiple alleged acts were lumped together into a single, broad, and vague charge.
On paper, it looked efficient. One charge. One trial. Everything consolidated. But criminal law is not driven by efficiency alone. It is driven by fairness of trial. The central issue was this: Did the accused truly know the case he had to answer?
The court stressed that every charge must be clear, specific, and free from ambiguity. When several distinct offences are combined without sufficient particulars — such as dates, specific acts, or which documents were allegedly forged — the charge becomes duplicitous. Duplicity is not a minor technical defect. It is a fundamental issue of justice.
When a charge is overly general, the accused does not know: which act he must defend against, which evidence he must challenge, or whether he is being tried for one offence or several at the same time.
This directly undermines the accused’s right to prepare an effective defence.
The court emphasised that while the prosecution has the power to consolidate charges, that power must be exercised with care. Separate offences cannot be merged in a way that obscures the true nature of the accusation.
In this case, the court found that the manner in which the charge was framed was confusing, excessively broad, and capable of prejudicing a fair trial. Such a charge creates the risk of conviction without clarity as to which specific offence has actually been proven.
The court reiterated a fundamental principle of criminal law:
A fair trial begins with a clear charge. Without clarity, the entire judicial process is tainted — even where the alleged offence is serious. This case was not about letting offenders go free. It was about ensuring that the justice system does not take shortcuts.
Lesson learned:
In criminal cases, the prosecution cannot take a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Every offence must be particularised. Every charge must be understandable. Because in criminal law, it is not only the outcome that matters — a fair process is everything.
