Nor Hafiz Bin Hanapi [ ]

Nor Hafiz Bin Hanapi [ ]

The High Court allowed the appeal because the convictions rested primarily on the complainant's testimony which was not shown to be unusually convincing and the supporting witness evidence derived from that complainant rather than providing independent corroboration; further, absence of clinical/treatment records, absence of testimony about accepted clinical procedure and the brief circumstances at the scene meant the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant exceeded clinical procedure or had criminal intent for offences under sections 354 and 377D, so convictions and sentences were unsafe and were quashed.

Citation
CB-41S(A)-3-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Nor Hafiz bin Hanapi; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 April 2024
Case Number
CB-41S(A)-3-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Hearing/decision at High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Section 354 Penal Code, Section 377 D Penal Code, Corroboration, Credibility of Witnesses, Medical Procedure Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Medical Law Sexual Offences Section 354 Penal Code Section 377 D Penal Code Corroboration Credibility of Witnesses +1 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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nor Hafiz bin Hanapi

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Hearing/decision at High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved offences under section 354 and section 377D beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether the complainant's evidence was 'unusually convincing' or required corroboration
  3. 3 Whether supporting witnesses and evidence of opportunity independently corroborated the complainant

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal because the convictions rested primarily on the complainant's testimony which was not shown to be unusually convincing and the supporting witness evidence derived from that complainant rather than providing independent corroboration; further, absence of clinical/treatment records, absence of testimony about accepted clinical procedure and the brief circumstances at the scene meant the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant exceeded clinical procedure or had criminal intent for offences under sections 354 and 377D, so convictions and sentences were unsafe and were quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside

Orders

  • Convictions under section 354 and section 377D quashed
  • Sentences imposed by the Magistrate set aside