MOHD RUSIDI BIN HUSSIN

MOHD RUSIDI BIN HUSSIN

On maximum evaluation of all prosecution evidence the court found elements one and three proved (accused was driver; death occurred) but the prosecution failed to prove element two (driving recklessly). The accused signalled, stopped 3–4 minutes, and the road was straight with clear visibility; turning on a double white line may be a traffic offence but did not automatically amount to reckless driving. Therefore no prima facie case and accused discharged at end of prosecution case.

Citation
DF-83-138-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Mohd Rusidi bin Hussin
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 July 2025
Case Number
DF-83-138-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Road Traffic Offence (s.41(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987) / End of Prosecution Case (discharge Without Calling Accused to Enter Defence)
Outcome
Accused discharged and freed at end of prosecution case; accused not called to enter defence.
Legal Topics
Reckless Driving Causing Death, Prima Facie Assessment, Evaluation of Evidence, Traffic Regulation (double White Line)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Evidence Law Reckless Driving Causing Death Prima Facie Assessment Evaluation of Evidence Traffic Regulation (double White Line)

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Mohd Rusidi bin Hussin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Road Traffic Offence (s.41(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987) / End of Prosecution Case (discharge Without Calling Accused to Enter Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved that the accused drove recklessly within s.41(1) APJ 1987
  2. 2 Whether turning on a double white line automatically constitutes reckless/dangerous driving
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution adduced credible evidence to meet the prima facie threshold

Ratio Decidendi

On maximum evaluation of all prosecution evidence the court found elements one and three proved (accused was driver; death occurred) but the prosecution failed to prove element two (driving recklessly). The accused signalled, stopped 3–4 minutes, and the road was straight with clear visibility; turning on a double white line may be a traffic offence but did not automatically amount to reckless driving. Therefore no prima facie case and accused discharged at end of prosecution case.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and freed at end of prosecution case; accused not called to enter defence.

Orders

  • Accused discharged and freed without being called to enter defence.