SIBU: A convicted sex offender’s attempt to revive his appeal has been rejected by the High Court here today (Aug 12) after the court found that his prolonged failure to comply with statutory deadlines was not satisfactorily explained and did not warrant judicial indulgence.
Judicial Commissioner Alvin Leong Yin Yuan dismissed an application by Meruan Lapik, 73, to regularise his late Notice of Appeal and a related bid to extend the time for filing his Petition of Appeal.
The court also affirmed Meruan’s conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court following his conviction after a full trial on Dec 3, 2024.
Meruan was convicted under Section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 (SOACA) for sexually assaulting an 11-year-old child at a hotel along Market Road here on March 14, 2021.
He was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment and four strokes of the cane, together with rehabilitative counselling and police supervision orders.
The appeal ran into procedural difficulties from the outset.
The High Court heard that Meruan’s former counsel filed the Notice of Appeal on Jan 8, 2025 — 23 days after the prescribed deadline had expired.
However, no application was made at that time to regularise the late filing.
The delay subsequently stretched well beyond the original breach.
Meruan only engaged new counsel on April 15, 2026, while an application seeking an extension of time to file the Petition of Appeal was filed on April 27 — more than seven months after the relevant statutory deadline.
A further application to regularise the late Notice of Appeal was eventually filed on June 26, 2026, about 17 months after the Notice of Appeal itself had been lodged.
The prosecution represented by deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Mark Kenneth Netto opposed the applications, arguing that the delay was excessive and that Meruan’s explanation rested largely on allegations against his former counsel.
It was submitted that Meruan had failed to produce a confirmatory affidavit from the former lawyer or independent evidence capable of substantiating those allegations.
Justice Leong agreed that the explanation fell short of what was required.
The court noted that although Meruan attributed the delays to his former counsel, his supporting affidavit did not clearly establish when the former counsel had ceased acting for him or what steps Meruan himself had taken to pursue the appeal after the initial Notice of Appeal was filed.
The court also rejected Meruan’s reliance on an earlier Sibu High Court decision involving Douglas Delly Abang, in which an out-of-time appeal had been allowed.
Justice Leong distinguished the earlier case, pointing out that the appellant there had been unrepresented and the delay was attributed to an alleged institutional failure involving prison authorities.
That was materially different from Meruan’s case, where the alleged failure concerned his privately retained counsel.
The court further found that even if the procedural shortcomings were overlooked, the proposed appeal had little prospect of success.
Meruan had raised several grounds challenging the Sessions Court’s decision, including alleged errors in calling for his defence, its assessment of the child victim’s evidence, the handling of certain evidential procedures, the evaluation of his defence and its treatment of his claim that he had been performing a traditional rite.
He also challenged the severity of the sentence, arguing that the 13-year jail term was excessive and that whipping should not have been imposed.
However, the High Court found little merit in the proposed grounds.
The prosecution submitted that the Sessions Court had properly evaluated the evidence before finding that a prima facie case had been established and had given cogent reasons for rejecting Meruan’s defence.
The High Court also took into account the Sessions Court’s findings on the seriousness of the sexual assault and the inconsistencies in Meruan’s own testimony.
On sentence, the prosecution maintained that the 13-year imprisonment term was proportionate and remained below the statutory maximum of 20 years under Section 14(a) of SOACA.
It was also submitted that the Sessions Court had considered Meruan’s age and mitigation before imposing the sentence.
After considering the submissions, Justice Leong dismissed Enclosure 25, the application to regularise the late Notice of Appeal.
An earlier application under Enclosure 18 seeking an extension of time to file the Petition of Appeal had already been discontinued.
The High Court consequently dismissed Meruan’s bid to pursue the appeal and affirmed both his conviction and sentence.
