ABDUL AZIZ BIN ABDUL SAMAD

ABDUL AZIZ BIN ABDUL SAMAD

Conviction could not stand because the trial judge misdirected himself by imposing dual burdens on the accused (requiring both raising reasonable doubt and rebutting the s50 statutory presumption on balance of probabilities), and key recorded evidence was rendered inadmissible by the prosecution's failure to reduce oral interception authorizations into writing 'as soon as practicable' under s43(3) ASPRM 2009; cumulatively prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt so convictions and sentences were quashed and the accused acquitted.

Citation
JA-42(R)(A)-01-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Samad; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
R
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 February 2020
Case Number
JA-42(R)(A)-01-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (corruption) / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; accused acquitted and discharged.
Legal Topics
Bribery, Prima Facie Case, Statutory Presumption, Interception of Communications, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Corruption Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Bribery Prima Facie Case Statutory Presumption Interception of Communications +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Samad

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (corruption) / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and raised a prima facie case
  2. 2 Whether recordings of telephone conversations were admissible given non-compliance with s43(3) ASPRM 2009
  3. 3 Whether trial judge impermissibly reversed credibility findings without reasons

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction could not stand because the trial judge misdirected himself by imposing dual burdens on the accused (requiring both raising reasonable doubt and rebutting the s50 statutory presumption on balance of probabilities), and key recorded evidence was rendered inadmissible by the prosecution's failure to reduce oral interception authorizations into writing 'as soon as practicable' under s43(3) ASPRM 2009; cumulatively prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt so convictions and sentences were quashed and the accused acquitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; accused acquitted and discharged.

Orders

  • Convictions dated 25.10.2017 set aside
  • Convictions and sentences quashed