Muhd Farez Bin Hilmi [TIMBALAN ]

Muhd Farez Bin Hilmi [TIMBALAN ]

The High Court found the Magistrate plainly wrong for failing to properly assess a material inconsistency in the prosecution's evidence regarding the date and identity of the urine specimen; that inconsistency critically undermined the chain of custody and the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case, therefore the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted and discharged.

Citation
BA-41S(A)-5-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Muhd Farez bin Hilmi; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 April 2025
Case Number
BA-41S(A)-5-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (conviction and Sentence) / High Court Appeal Hearing (original Conviction in Magistrates' Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged.
Legal Topics
Use/possession of Controlled Substance (methamphetamine), Chain of Custody/identity of Exhibit, Prima Facie Proof, Appellate Review Standard ('plainly Wrong' Test), Credibility of Dock Statement, Sentencing Principles
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Narcotics/drugs Law Evidence Law Appellate Procedure Use/possession of Controlled Substance (methamphetamine) Chain of Custody/identity of Exhibit Prima Facie Proof Appellate Review Standard ('plainly Wrong' Test) +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhd Farez bin Hilmi

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (conviction and Sentence) / High Court Appeal Hearing (original Conviction in Magistrates' Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the laboratory report (P13) related to the urine sample taken from the appellant given inconsistency in dates (28.8.2019 vs 27.8.2019)
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the exhibit and established a prima facie case
  3. 3 Whether the Magistrate erred in calling the accused to enter his defence despite material inconsistencies in prosecution evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found the Magistrate plainly wrong for failing to properly assess a material inconsistency in the prosecution's evidence regarding the date and identity of the urine specimen; that inconsistency critically undermined the chain of custody and the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case, therefore the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted and discharged.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Conviction and sentence of the Magistrates' Court set aside