MICHAEL LIEW

MICHAEL LIEW

The court found the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was subject to a valid police supervision order and breached the curfew by being outside his registered residence between 8.00 pm and 6.00 am; the offence is one of strict liability so self‑induced intoxication is not a defence under s85 Penal Code and the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction under Section 15(2)(f) APJ 1959 was therefore justified and the appropriate sentence was two years' imprisonment commencing from date of conviction.

Citation
TA-83-278-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Defendant: Michael Liew
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 August 2023
Case Number
TA-83-278-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (section 15(2)(f)) / Trial Concluded; Conviction and Sentencing in Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Defendant convicted under Section 15(2)(f) Prevention of Crime Act 1959; sentenced to 2 years imprisonment starting from date of conviction.
Legal Topics
Police Supervision Orders, Strict Liability Offences, Intoxication Defence, Curfew/house Arrest Breach, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Sentencing Police Supervision Orders Strict Liability Offences Intoxication Defence Curfew/house Arrest Breach Appeal Procedure

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Michael Liew

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (section 15(2)(f)) / Trial Concluded; Conviction and Sentencing in Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved elements of offence under Section 15(2)(f) APJ 1959
  2. 2 Whether intoxication/mabuk provides a defence to a strict liability offence
  3. 3 Whether absence of a prosecution witness (Rames) permits adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was subject to a valid police supervision order and breached the curfew by being outside his registered residence between 8.00 pm and 6.00 am; the offence is one of strict liability so self‑induced intoxication is not a defence under s85 Penal Code and the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction under Section 15(2)(f) APJ 1959 was therefore justified and the appropriate sentence was two years' imprisonment commencing from date of conviction.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted under Section 15(2)(f) Prevention of Crime Act 1959; sentenced to 2 years imprisonment starting from date of conviction.

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 15(2)(f) APJ 1959 and sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment commencing from date of conviction
  • Earlier stay of execution was conditionally granted pending appeal subject to filing notice of appeal and additional bail of RM6,000