LI YUANFENG

LI YUANFENG

The court found the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of s186: officers lawfully exercising powers under s24 Police Act and s45B Road Transport Act had asked for a breath specimen, the request was communicated (including Mandarin translation), the defendant understood but voluntarily refused thereby obstructing the public servant; the amendment to charge to s186 was permissible and not prejudicial; defendant's contradictory testimony and late invention were unreliable; conviction followed and court imposed a fine of RM4,000 (2 months default) and costs RM1,000 (1 month default).

Citation
WA-83-3200-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Defendant: LI YUANFENG
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 October 2023
Case Number
WA-83-3200-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Concluded; Conviction and Sentencing
Outcome
Guilty; convicted under Section 186 Penal Code
Legal Topics
Obstruction of Public Servant (s186 Penal Code), Breath Test / Refusal (s45 B Road Transport Act 1987), Charge Amendment (s158, S156 Criminal Procedure), Prima Facie Test, Intoxication Defence (s85 Penal Code)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Road Transport Law Police Powers Obstruction of Public Servant (s186 Penal Code) Breath Test / Refusal (s45 B Road Transport Act 1987) Charge Amendment (s158, S156 Criminal Procedure) +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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

LI YUANFENG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Concluded; Conviction and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case for obstruction under s186 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether the charge amendment to s186 was permissible and not prejudicial
  3. 3 Whether defendant voluntarily obstructed a public servant by refusing a breath specimen

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of s186: officers lawfully exercising powers under s24 Police Act and s45B Road Transport Act had asked for a breath specimen, the request was communicated (including Mandarin translation), the defendant understood but voluntarily refused thereby obstructing the public servant; the amendment to charge to s186 was permissible and not prejudicial; defendant's contradictory testimony and late invention were unreliable; conviction followed and court imposed a fine of RM4,000 (2 months default) and costs RM1,000 (1 month default).

Court Disposition

Guilty; convicted under Section 186 Penal Code

Orders

  • Charge amended to Section 186 Penal Code and read to accused
  • Fine RM4000; in default 2 months imprisonment