PENDAKWARAYA PUAN AINY SUHAILAH YUNUS IBRAHIM BIN SULTAN MOHAMAD

PENDAKWARAYA PUAN AINY SUHAILAH YUNUS IBRAHIM BIN SULTAN MOHAMAD

Court held Exhibit P8 could not be treated as prima facie evidence under s61A because prosecution failed to prove a Director General removal order or adduces unrebutted evidence that the deponent was removed; prosecution also failed to prove essential elements of s26J (no evidence that accused owned/operated or used any transport to carry the migrant) and identity doubts over the deponent undermined credibility — therefore no prima facie case and accused must be acquitted.

Citation
PA-45SOM-8-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Ibrahim bin Sultan Mohamad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 August 2020
Case Number
PA-45SOM-8-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (atipsom Human Trafficking / Migrant Smuggling) / End of Prosecution Case; Judgment on Whether Prima Facie Case Established (no‑case To‑answer)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
ATIPSOM Section 26 J (transporting Migrants), ATIPSOM Section 61 a (depositions), Deportation/removal Orders Under Immigration Act, Burden of Proof at Close of Prosecution, Witness Identity and Credibility
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Immigration Law Evidence Law Human Trafficking Law ATIPSOM Section 26 J (transporting Migrants) ATIPSOM Section 61 a (depositions) Deportation/removal Orders Under Immigration Act Burden of Proof at Close of Prosecution +1 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Ibrahim bin Sultan Mohamad

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (atipsom Human Trafficking / Migrant Smuggling) / End of Prosecution Case; Judgment on Whether Prima Facie Case Established (no‑case To‑answer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deposition (Exhibit P8) was admissible as prima facie evidence under s61A ATIPSOM absent proof of a Director General removal order
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved elements of s26J ATIPSOM (that accused was owner/operator/skipper of a transport used to carry smuggled migrant)
  3. 3 Whether the identity and credibility of the deponent (Onil Borua/Jahidul Islam) was sufficiently established

Ratio Decidendi

Court held Exhibit P8 could not be treated as prima facie evidence under s61A because prosecution failed to prove a Director General removal order or adduces unrebutted evidence that the deponent was removed; prosecution also failed to prove essential elements of s26J (no evidence that accused owned/operated or used any transport to carry the migrant) and identity doubts over the deponent undermined credibility — therefore no prima facie case and accused must be acquitted.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Accused Ibrahim bin Sultan Mohamad is acquitted and discharged of the charge under s26J ATIPSOM
  • Exhibit P8 not accepted as prima facie evidence for the purposes of this trial