MAHENDRAN A/L SURESH [ ]

MAHENDRAN A/L SURESH [ ]

The conviction was safe because the charge contained the necessary ingredients, the appellant unequivocally pleaded guilty and admitted the facts and exhibits, and any drafting or procedural omission (such as not showing P7) did not mislead the accused or occasion a failure of justice under CPC s156 and s422; sentence of 10 months was excessive in all circumstances and was reduced to 1 month.

Citation
AB-41S-10-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Mahendran A/L Suresh; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 May 2022
Case Number
AB-41S-10-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal (conviction Affirmed; Sentence Varied)
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Driving Under Influence (dui), Charge Sufficiency, Breathalyser Evidence (eba), Admission of Facts and Guilty Plea, Application of CPC Ss152 156, 305, 422, Sentencing and Mitigation
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Road Transport Law Criminal Procedure Driving Under Influence (dui) Charge Sufficiency Breathalyser Evidence (eba) Admission of Facts and Guilty Plea Application of CPC Ss152 156, 305, 422 +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahendran A/L Suresh

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal (conviction Affirmed; Sentence Varied)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charge was defective or misleading for stating '138mg/100ml darah' without specifying prescribed limit or specimen type
  2. 2 Whether omission to show exhibit P7 (EBA result) to accused and its explanation misled accused and caused miscarriage of justice
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's unequivocal guilty plea and admission of facts cured any drafting or evidential defects

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was safe because the charge contained the necessary ingredients, the appellant unequivocally pleaded guilty and admitted the facts and exhibits, and any drafting or procedural omission (such as not showing P7) did not mislead the accused or occasion a failure of justice under CPC s156 and s422; sentence of 10 months was excessive in all circumstances and was reduced to 1 month.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.

Orders

  • Conviction affirmed.
  • Original imprisonment of 10 months substituted with imprisonment of 1 month.