Nguyen Van Chung [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Nguyen Van Chung [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution's failure to call an important eyewitness (Nguyen Thi Ly), who was said to have been present, prejudiced the prosecution's case; the trial judge erred by relying predominantly on the interested witness (SP5) and failing to apply s114(g) Evidence Act 1950; because the prosecution had not discharged the burden beyond reasonable doubt the conviction for murder was unsafe and was quashed and the death sentence set aside.

Citation
B-05(M)-488-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Nguyen Van Chung; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 August 2021
Case Number
B-05(M)-488-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (murder) / Appeal Heard at the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and death sentence quashed; appellant acquitted and released.
Legal Topics
Murder (section 302 Penal Code), Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Witness, Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950, Reliability of Interested Witnesses, Capital Punishment
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Murder (section 302 Penal Code) Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Witness Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 Reliability of Interested Witnesses Capital Punishment

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

Parties

Nguyen Van Chung

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (murder) / Appeal Heard at the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure by the prosecution to call an eyewitness (Nguyen Thi Ly) required invocation of s114(g) Evidence Act 1950 and warranted an adverse inference
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution had discharged its burden to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt given reliance on an interested witness (SP5)
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in law and fact by relying predominantly on SP5 and not addressing s114(g)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution's failure to call an important eyewitness (Nguyen Thi Ly), who was said to have been present, prejudiced the prosecution's case; the trial judge erred by relying predominantly on the interested witness (SP5) and failing to apply s114(g) Evidence Act 1950; because the prosecution had not discharged the burden beyond reasonable doubt the conviction for murder was unsafe and was quashed and the death sentence set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and death sentence quashed; appellant acquitted and released.

Orders

  • Quash conviction under Section 302 Penal Code
  • Set aside death sentence