1. ) DAVIS ANAK MERING 2. ) BUNSU ANAK GUTAK [ ]

1. ) DAVIS ANAK MERING 2. ) BUNSU ANAK GUTAK [ ]

The Court affirmed conviction because the totality of admissible evidence (vehicle borrowing/use, migrants' depositions, arrest proximity to border, pre-arranged meeting at the estate) permitted the inference that appellants conveyed smuggled migrants and had knowledge or reason to believe the migrants' entry/exit...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
Q-05(SH)-425-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Davis Anak Mering; Appellant: Bunsu Anak Gutak; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 February 2024
Case Number
Q-05(SH)-425-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed; Conviction and Sentence Affirmed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed
Legal Topics
Smuggling of Migrants, Conveyance of Migrants, Common Intention (s.34 Penal Code), Appellate Review of Factual Findings, Sentencing
Criminal Law Immigration Law Anti Trafficking and Smuggling Law Evidence Law Smuggling of Migrants Conveyance of Migrants Common Intention (s.34 Penal Code) Appellate Review of Factual Findings +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davis Anak Mering

Appellant

Bunsu Anak Gutak

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed; Conviction and Sentence Affirmed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants, as operators of the vehicle, engaged in the conveyance of smuggled migrants contrary to s.26J ATIPSOM 2007 read with s.34 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to adequately consider and appreciate the defence and depositions of the migrants
  3. 3 Whether voluntariness/consent of migrants negates liability under s.26J ATIPSOM 2007

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed conviction because the totality of admissible evidence (vehicle borrowing/use, migrants' depositions, arrest proximity to border, pre-arranged meeting at the estate) permitted the inference that appellants conveyed smuggled migrants and had knowledge or reason to believe the migrants' entry/exit was unlawful; common intention was inferable from conduct and the trial judge properly evaluated and rejected the defence, so there were no substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the factual findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed

Orders

  • Warrant of Committal to be issued
  • Bail to be refunded