KHAIRIL AZHAR BIN AHMAD

KHAIRIL AZHAR BIN AHMAD

The charge contained a curable typographical error but was otherwise fatally duplicitous by alleging both reckless driving and driving under the influence in one count; crucial elements of s.44(1)(a) were not proven because prosecution failed to call the forensic scientist to prove presence of drugs and failed to prove loss of control was caused by drugs; consequently no prima facie case was established and the accused was acquitted and discharged.

Citation
PA-83-1047-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Khairil Azhar bin Ahmad
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 March 2024
Case Number
PA-83-1047-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (road Traffic) / Trial End of Prosecution (judgment)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
Driving Under Influence, Duplicity of Charge, Prima Facie Assessment, Charge Curability Under S.422 CPC, Acquittal
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Road Transport Law Evidence Law Driving Under Influence Duplicity of Charge Prima Facie Assessment Charge Curability Under S.422 CPC Acquittal

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Khairil Azhar bin Ahmad

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (road Traffic) / Trial End of Prosecution (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the typographical error in the charge (S.44(1)(A) vs S.44(1)(a)) is curable
  2. 2 Whether the charge is duplicitous by alleging both reckless driving (melulu) and driving under the influence in one count
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved each element of S.44(1)(a) RTA 1987: drug influence, loss of control due to drugs, and causing injury

Ratio Decidendi

The charge contained a curable typographical error but was otherwise fatally duplicitous by alleging both reckless driving and driving under the influence in one count; crucial elements of s.44(1)(a) were not proven because prosecution failed to call the forensic scientist to prove presence of drugs and failed to prove loss of control was caused by drugs; consequently no prima facie case was established and the accused was acquitted and discharged.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Accused Khairil Azhar bin Ahmad is acquitted and discharged of the charge under S.44(1)(a) Road Transport Act 1987
  • Charge found defective for duplicity and therefore no prima facie case made out