MUHAMMAD ZAKI BIN OMAR

MUHAMMAD ZAKI BIN OMAR

Although the prosecution proved authorship through forensic evidence and the presumption under s114A, it failed to prove that the impugned post was objectively offensive or that the accused intended to annoy any person; the challenged sentences were factual/commentary within public discourse and judicially noticeable context of the pandemic and thus did not meet the statutory threshold under s233(1)(a); consequently no prima facie case existed and the accused was acquitted and discharged.

Citation
WA-62CY-16-07/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Muhammad Zaki bin Omar
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 September 2024
Case Number
WA-62CY-16-07/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (section 233(1)(a)) / Acquitted and Discharged at Conclusion of Prosecution's Case (end of Prosecution's Case)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
Section 233 CMA, Freedom of Speech (article 10), Prima Facie Evaluation, Judicial Notice, Presumption of Publication (s114 a Evidence Act)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Cyber Law Evidence Constitutional Law Section 233 CMA Freedom of Speech (article 10) Prima Facie Evaluation Judicial Notice +1 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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Muhammad Zaki bin Omar

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (section 233(1)(a)) / Acquitted and Discharged at Conclusion of Prosecution's Case (end of Prosecution's Case)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Authorship of online publication
  2. 2 Whether the impugned Facebook post is 'offensive' under s233(1)(a) CMA
  3. 3 Whether accused had intent to annoy

Ratio Decidendi

Although the prosecution proved authorship through forensic evidence and the presumption under s114A, it failed to prove that the impugned post was objectively offensive or that the accused intended to annoy any person; the challenged sentences were factual/commentary within public discourse and judicially noticeable context of the pandemic and thus did not meet the statutory threshold under s233(1)(a); consequently no prima facie case existed and the accused was acquitted and discharged.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Accused acquitted and discharged pursuant to section 173(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code