ONG SOON LEONG

ONG SOON LEONG

The magistrate discharged the accused because the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: critical gaps included absence of evidence identifying who conducted the EBA II test, lack of identification of the accused by the breath test operator, failure to call or explain the role of Sarjan Mohd Ruslan giving rise to an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act, material contradictions between witnesses as to the number and custody of EBA slips and whether a slip was handed to the accused, and a deficient investigation by the IO; these deficiencies together prevented a reasonable conviction and required release at the close of the prosecution.

Citation
WA-83-1713-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Ong Soon Leong
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 November 2025
Case Number
WA-83-1713-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Traffic (offence Under Road Transport Act 1987) / Acquittal at Close of Prosecution (magistrates' Court); Prosecution Appeal Contemplated
Outcome
Accused acquitted, released and discharged at close of prosecution; surety returned
Legal Topics
Driving Under Influence, Prima Facie Assessment, Authentication of Breath Test Evidence, Failure to Call Witness/adverse Inference, Chain of Custody, Identification of Accused
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Traffic/vehicle Offences Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Driving Under Influence Prima Facie Assessment Authentication of Breath Test Evidence Failure to Call Witness/adverse Inference +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Ong Soon Leong

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Traffic (offence Under Road Transport Act 1987) / Acquittal at Close of Prosecution (magistrates' Court); Prosecution Appeal Contemplated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved a prima facie case under s45A(1) Road Transport Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether the EBA II breath test results were properly authenticated and attributed to the accused
  3. 3 Whether the failure to call or properly identify the breath test operator warranted an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate discharged the accused because the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: critical gaps included absence of evidence identifying who conducted the EBA II test, lack of identification of the accused by the breath test operator, failure to call or explain the role of Sarjan Mohd Ruslan giving rise to an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act, material contradictions between witnesses as to the number and custody of EBA slips and whether a slip was handed to the accused, and a deficient investigation by the IO; these deficiencies together prevented a reasonable conviction and required release at the close of the prosecution.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted, released and discharged at close of prosecution; surety returned

Orders

  • Accused released and discharged from the charge
  • Bail/security returned to the surety