KHAIRUL AZIZI BIN ABDUL JALIL [ ]

KHAIRUL AZIZI BIN ABDUL JALIL [ ]

Trial judge correctly preferred prosecution psychiatrist's opinion based on his more extensive, objective assessment and rejected defence psychiatrist's report as deficient; defence failed to prove legal insanity on balance of probabilities; calling prosecution psychiatrist during prosecution case was procedurally premature but did not prejudice accused; conviction for murder affirmed and death sentence commuted to 35 years imprisonment plus 12 strokes of the cane.

Citation
A-05(M)-586-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Khairul Azizi bin Abdul Jalil; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 June 2024
Case Number
A-05(M)-586-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction for murder affirmed; death sentence commuted to 35 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane from date of arrest.
Legal Topics
Murder Under Section 302 Penal Code, Insanity Defence (section 84 Penal Code), Onus and Presumption of Sanity (section 105 Evidence Act 1950), Admissibility and Timing of Expert Evidence, Commutation of Death Sentence Under Abolition of Death Penalty Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Forensic Psychiatry Sentencing Law Penal Code Matters Murder Under Section 302 Penal Code Insanity Defence (section 84 Penal Code) Onus and Presumption of Sanity (section 105 Evidence Act 1950) +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khairul Azizi bin Abdul Jalil

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant was legally insane at the time of the offence
  2. 2 Whether prosecution was entitled to call a psychiatrist during the prosecution case before defence raised insanity
  3. 3 Whether trial judge erred in preferring prosecution psychiatrist's opinion over defence psychiatrist's opinion

Ratio Decidendi

Trial judge correctly preferred prosecution psychiatrist's opinion based on his more extensive, objective assessment and rejected defence psychiatrist's report as deficient; defence failed to prove legal insanity on balance of probabilities; calling prosecution psychiatrist during prosecution case was procedurally premature but did not prejudice accused; conviction for murder affirmed and death sentence commuted to 35 years imprisonment plus 12 strokes of the cane.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction for murder affirmed; death sentence commuted to 35 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane from date of arrest.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction for murder under section 302 Penal Code affirmed