MOHAMAD ALIF SYAZWAN BIN ROSLAN

MOHAMAD ALIF SYAZWAN BIN ROSLAN

Court found prosecution proved a prima facie case; prosecution witnesses were credible; omission of 'voluntarily' was amendable; the assault and obstruction allegations arose from the same act so conviction was entered on Section 353 (assault on public servant) and acquittal entered on the overlapping Section 186 charge to avoid double jeopardy; accused convicted for breach of COVID-19 movement regulation; court imposed a non-custodial bond for the assault and a fine with imprisonment alternative for the regulatory breach in view of mitigating factors and first offender status.

Citation
WA-82-23-04/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: MOHAMAD ALIF SYAZWAN BIN ROSLAN
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 September 2022
Case Number
WA-82-23-04/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial and Sentencing (prosecution Appealed Sentence)
Outcome
Accused acquitted of first charge (s.186), convicted of second charge (s.353 Penal Code) and convicted of third charge (breach of COVID-19 movement regulations).
Legal Topics
Assault on Public Servant, Obstruction of Public Servant, Movement Control/covid 19 Regulation Breach, Prima Facie Test, Self Defence, Double Jeopardy, Sentence Review and Probation
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Public Health Regulation Evidence Law Assault on Public Servant Obstruction of Public Servant Movement Control/covid 19 Regulation Breach Prima Facie Test Self Defence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 8 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecutor

MOHAMAD ALIF SYAZWAN BIN ROSLAN

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial and Sentencing (prosecution Appealed Sentence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case at the close of its case
  2. 2 Whether omission of the word 'voluntarily' in the charge was fatal or amendable
  3. 3 Whether the acts charged under Section 186 and Section 353 constituted the same offence (double jeopardy)

Ratio Decidendi

Court found prosecution proved a prima facie case; prosecution witnesses were credible; omission of 'voluntarily' was amendable; the assault and obstruction allegations arose from the same act so conviction was entered on Section 353 (assault on public servant) and acquittal entered on the overlapping Section 186 charge to avoid double jeopardy; accused convicted for breach of COVID-19 movement regulation; court imposed a non-custodial bond for the assault and a fine with imprisonment alternative for the regulatory breach in view of mitigating factors and first offender status.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted of first charge (s.186), convicted of second charge (s.353 Penal Code) and convicted of third charge (breach of COVID-19 movement regulations).

Orders

  • Count 2 (s.353): Released on bond of good behaviour for 2 years with RM2000 cash surety and one guarantor
  • Count 3 (COVID-19 regulation): Fine RM1000 or in default 1 month imprisonment