ERMAWANI BINTI E SHADALI

ERMAWANI BINTI E SHADALI

The High Court held the magistrate erred in treating the alleged contradiction between P5 and P12 as creating reasonable doubt because SP4's account explained the amendment and established that the respondent amended P12 and initialed it at SP4's request; the respondent had exclusive custody and control of the seized items, 60 packets disappeared while under her control, she failed to take follow-up action to obtain prosecution instructions, and her conduct demonstrated intent to screen the offender; conviction under s201 Penal Code was therefore justified and the acquittal was set aside.

Citation
BA-41LB(A)-4-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Respondent: Ermawani binti E Shadali
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Case Number
BA-41LB(A)-4-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; magistrate's acquittal set aside; respondent convicted under s201 Penal Code
Legal Topics
Section 201 Penal Code, Section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Prima Facie, Appeal Against Acquittal, Loss of Evidence, Intent to Screen Offender, S114(g) Evidence Act 1950
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Police Misconduct Narcotics Law Section 201 Penal Code Section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Prima Facie Appeal Against Acquittal +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Ermawani binti E Shadali

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contradiction between Pol 31 forms (P5 and P12) created reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether respondent had intent to screen an offender by causing disappearance of evidence under s201 Penal Code
  3. 3 Whether failure to prosecute suspect or lack of directive from superiors absolves investigator

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the magistrate erred in treating the alleged contradiction between P5 and P12 as creating reasonable doubt because SP4's account explained the amendment and established that the respondent amended P12 and initialed it at SP4's request; the respondent had exclusive custody and control of the seized items, 60 packets disappeared while under her control, she failed to take follow-up action to obtain prosecution instructions, and her conduct demonstrated intent to screen the offender; conviction under s201 Penal Code was therefore justified and the acquittal was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; magistrate's acquittal set aside; respondent convicted under s201 Penal Code

Orders

  • Magistrate's order of acquittal dated 17.4.2019 set aside
  • Respondent Ermawani binti E Shadali convicted under section 201 Penal Code