TIRUSUNDARY A/P RAJAH

TIRUSUNDARY A/P RAJAH

Court found accused objectively created a dangerous situation (element (a)) but element (b) (fault) was not wholly established because evidence showed a real possibility the deceased was speeding and other contributing factors existed; accordingly the charge under Section 41(1) was not maintained but a prima facie case under Section 43(1) was proved, leading to conviction under Section 43(1) and imposition of the fine and ancillary orders.

Citation
MA-83-966-08/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Tirusundary a/p Rajah
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 December 2022
Case Number
MA-83-966-08/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (road Traffic) / Appeal by Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 43(1) Road Transport Act 1987 upheld
Legal Topics
Dangerous Driving, Negligent Driving, Charge Amendment, Causation, Sentencing Principles, Section 41(1) Road Transport Act 1987, Section 43(1) Road Transport Act 1987
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Sentencing Dangerous Driving Negligent Driving Charge Amendment Causation Sentencing Principles +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Tirusundary a/p Rajah

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (road Traffic) / Appeal by Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether elements of Section 41(1) Road Transport Act 1987 are made out (dangerous situation and fault)
  2. 2 Whether charge should be amended to Section 43(1) and conviction entered
  3. 3 Appropriateness of sentence imposed

Ratio Decidendi

Court found accused objectively created a dangerous situation (element (a)) but element (b) (fault) was not wholly established because evidence showed a real possibility the deceased was speeding and other contributing factors existed; accordingly the charge under Section 41(1) was not maintained but a prima facie case under Section 43(1) was proved, leading to conviction under Section 43(1) and imposition of the fine and ancillary orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 43(1) Road Transport Act 1987 upheld

Orders

  • Charge amended from Section 41(1) to Section 43(1) Road Transport Act 1987 and accused convicted under Section 43(1)
  • Fine of RM9000.00 imposed; in default of payment, ten months imprisonment