CHIN WEE SHENG

CHIN WEE SHENG

Evidence P13 (and dependent expert report P10 and PW3 evidence) was inadmissible because it was created at the instruction of the raiding officer and the photocopy was unclear; its prejudicial effect outweighed probative value; P14–P21 were found to be punters' slips; prosecution failed to establish the presumption under s.11(1)(c) CGHA and thus failed to make out a prima facie case — accused acquitted and discharged at end of prosecution's case.

Citation
MC-83-405-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Chin Wee Sheng
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 July 2024
Case Number
MC-83-405-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Alleged Illegal Public Lottery (common Gaming House Act 1953) / Trial End of Prosecution's Case (acquittal and Discharge)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged at end of prosecution's case
Legal Topics
Illegal Gambling, Admissibility of Evidence, Exclusionary Rule, Expert Evidence, Presumption Under Section 11(1)(c) CGHA, Search and Seizure
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Constitutional Law Regulatory/gaming Law Illegal Gambling Admissibility of Evidence Exclusionary Rule Expert Evidence +2 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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Chin Wee Sheng

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Alleged Illegal Public Lottery (common Gaming House Act 1953) / Trial End of Prosecution's Case (acquittal and Discharge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exhibits P13 and expert report P10 were admissible given they were produced at police instruction
  2. 2 Whether P14–P21 were records of stakes or merely punters' slips
  3. 3 Whether the presumption under s.11(1)(c) CGHA arose

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence P13 (and dependent expert report P10 and PW3 evidence) was inadmissible because it was created at the instruction of the raiding officer and the photocopy was unclear; its prejudicial effect outweighed probative value; P14–P21 were found to be punters' slips; prosecution failed to establish the presumption under s.11(1)(c) CGHA and thus failed to make out a prima facie case — accused acquitted and discharged at end of prosecution's case.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged at end of prosecution's case

Orders

  • Evidence P13 excluded
  • Expert report P10 and evidence of PW3 excluded