MOHAMAD SHAFIQ BIN ABDUL HALIM

MOHAMAD SHAFIQ BIN ABDUL HALIM

The High Court held the trial judge correctly limited disclosure: documents (a) and (b) had been served to the applicant (Jilid 4) and therefore no further order was required, while items (d)–(f) (DVDs and PDRM reports) were not in SPRM custody and thus not disclosable by SPRM; there was no evidence SPRM acted to conceal material, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
WA-42(Ors)-3-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/accused: Mohamad Shafiq bin Abdul Halim; Respondent/prosecution: Pendakwa Raya
Court
Ors
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 February 2026
Case Number
WA-42(Ors)-3-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (disclosure Application) / High Court Judgment on Disclosure Application From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Prosecution Documents, Custody and Control of Evidence, Section 51/51 a Criminal Procedure Code, SPRM Act S29/s30/s48/s53, Evidence Act Ss60(3), 163, 164, Separate Investigations by PDRM and SPRM, Fair Trial and Disclosure Obligations
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Procedure Evidence Public Law Constitutional Law Disclosure of Prosecution Documents Custody and Control of Evidence Section 51/51 a Criminal Procedure Code SPRM Act S29/s30/s48/s53 +3 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamad Shafiq bin Abdul Halim

Appellant/accused

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (disclosure Application) / High Court Judgment on Disclosure Application From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution/SPRM complied with its duty to disclose documents under s51/51A CPC and related provisions
  2. 2 Whether the DVDs and police reports were within the custody, care or control of SPRM and therefore disclosable by SPRM
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in limiting disclosure to the s53(3) statement dated 6/3/2023

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the trial judge correctly limited disclosure: documents (a) and (b) had been served to the applicant (Jilid 4) and therefore no further order was required, while items (d)–(f) (DVDs and PDRM reports) were not in SPRM custody and thus not disclosable by SPRM; there was no evidence SPRM acted to conceal material, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Disclosure confined to the s53(3) statement dated 6/3/2023 (IPJ/RPT/NO/0102/2023) as ordered by the trial court; documents identified as police DVDs and police reports not ordered produced by SPRM as they are not in SPRM custody