Alan Soh Heng Liang

Alan Soh Heng Liang

The Court found the conviction unsafe because the trial judge failed to consider the defence and relevant defence evidence (including evidence of another arrested person with similar packages), there were credible doubts about the appellant's knowledge of the drugs and gaps in the chain of custody, while the date error in the charge was curable under sections 156 and 422 CPC; therefore the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Citation
B-05(M)-397-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Alan Soh Heng Liang; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Case Number
B-05(M)-397-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Possession, Chain of Custody, Defective Charge, Knowledge (mens Rea), Burden of Proof, Assessment of Evidence, Alibi, Sentencing (death Penalty)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Procedure Drug Trafficking Possession Chain of Custody Defective Charge +5 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Soh Heng Liang

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charge was defective due to incorrect date
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had requisite knowledge of the drugs found in his bag
  3. 3 Whether there was a break in the chain of custody of the exhibits

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the conviction unsafe because the trial judge failed to consider the defence and relevant defence evidence (including evidence of another arrested person with similar packages), there were credible doubts about the appellant's knowledge of the drugs and gaps in the chain of custody, while the date error in the charge was curable under sections 156 and 422 CPC; therefore the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Conviction set aside
  • Appellant acquitted and discharged