JUFAZLI BIN SHI AHMAD

JUFAZLI BIN SHI AHMAD

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on both counts: they did not prove accused owned or operated the TikTok account or uploaded the video (s.114A presumption not established and social media analysis was merely presumptive), original video and device were not produced for conclusive forensic identification, there was insufficient evidence of intent to annoy, and no proper seizure/search supporting the s.249 allegation; accordingly accused was discharged and released without being called to answer.

Citation
WA-62CY-11-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Jufazli bin Shi Ahmad
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 November 2023
Case Number
WA-62CY-11-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sessions Court Judgment on Prima Facie (appeal to High Court Lodged by Prosecution)
Outcome
Accused discharged and released; acquitted without being called to enter defence on both charges
Legal Topics
Prima Facie, Publication on Internet, Presumption S.114 a, Section 233 CMA (offensive Communication), Section 249 CMA (access to Computer Data), Chain of Custody, Intent to Annoy
Source Language
Malay/English
Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Evidence Act 1950 Criminal Procedure Digital Forensics/cybercrime Prima Facie Publication on Internet Presumption S.114 a Section 233 CMA (offensive Communication) +3 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Jufazli bin Shi Ahmad

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sessions Court Judgment on Prima Facie (appeal to High Court Lodged by Prosecution)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case that accused published an obscene/offensive video via TikTok under s.233(1)(a) CMA
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved accused owned/operated the TikTok account or uploaded the video (application of s.114A Evidence Act)
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved intent to annoy or offend

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on both counts: they did not prove accused owned or operated the TikTok account or uploaded the video (s.114A presumption not established and social media analysis was merely presumptive), original video and device were not produced for conclusive forensic identification, there was insufficient evidence of intent to annoy, and no proper seizure/search supporting the s.249 allegation; accordingly accused was discharged and released without being called to answer.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and released; acquitted without being called to enter defence on both charges

Orders

  • Accused Jufazli bin Shi Ahmad is discharged and acquitted of both charges and released
  • No further orders recorded by Sessions Court (prosecution appeal to High Court noted)