MUSTAZA BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

MUSTAZA BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

Convictions for counts 1 and 3 are affirmed because the prosecution proved identity (telco records, seized handset with Telegram account name and preserved chat logs) and proved that the appellant's Telegram posts and online baiah constituted support for a terrorist organisation under the wide definition in s130J; SP7's expert evidence was admissible and persuasive. Conviction under count 2 (failure to report under s130M) is set aside because at the material time no statutory duty in the old Criminal Procedure Code required reporting of the terrorism offences charged and the appellant, a police mechanic not assigned to intelligence duties, was not 'legally bound' to report as required by...

Citation
W-06A(SH)-2-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Mustaza bin Abdul Rahman; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 November 2019
Case Number
W-06A(SH)-2-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (terrorism Offences) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction, Sentence and Appeal Against Trial Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: convictions on first and third charges affirmed; conviction and sentence on second charge quashed.
Legal Topics
Terrorism Offences (penal Code Chapter Via), Social Media Evidence (telegram), Identity and Electronic Evidence, Duty to Report/omission to Inform (s130 M), Protected Witness Procedure (sosma), Expert Evidence, Sentencing Trends
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Terrorism Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Sentencing Law Terrorism Offences (penal Code Chapter Via) Social Media Evidence (telegram) Identity and Electronic Evidence +4 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mustaza bin Abdul Rahman

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (terrorism Offences) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction, Sentence and Appeal Against Trial Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant was the Telegram user 'Mustidan Di'
  2. 2 Whether the Telegram posts constituted 'support' under s130J of the Penal Code
  3. 3 Whether appellant was legally bound to report offences under s130M at the material time

Ratio Decidendi

Convictions for counts 1 and 3 are affirmed because the prosecution proved identity (telco records, seized handset with Telegram account name and preserved chat logs) and proved that the appellant's Telegram posts and online baiah constituted support for a terrorist organisation under the wide definition in s130J; SP7's expert evidence was admissible and persuasive. Conviction under count 2 (failure to report under s130M) is set aside because at the material time no statutory duty in the old Criminal Procedure Code required reporting of the terrorism offences charged and the appellant, a police mechanic not assigned to intelligence duties, was not 'legally bound' to report as required by...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: convictions on first and third charges affirmed; conviction and sentence on second charge quashed.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence under second charge (s130M) set aside and quashed
  • Convictions under first (s130J(1)(b)) and third (s130J(1)(a)) charges affirmed