MUHAMMAD FAAIZ BIN MOHAMMAD AZMI

MUHAMMAD FAAIZ BIN MOHAMMAD AZMI

The prosecution failed to prove the second essential element (that the accused drove at a dangerous speed or in a manner dangerous to the public) beyond reasonable doubt; physical 'silent' evidence admitted multiple reasonable inferences and lacked objective/technical corroboration, therefore causation to the death was not established and the accused must be discharged under Section 41(1).

Citation
AA-83-1487-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Muhammad Faaiz bin Mohammad Azmi
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 May 2025
Case Number
AA-83-1487-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Road Traffic / Appeal From Magistrate Decision; Judgment After Defence Stage (final Discharge at Defence Stage)
Outcome
Accused released and discharged; prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case under Section 41(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987.
Legal Topics
Prima Facie Case, Dangerous Driving, Causation, Burden of Proof, Alternative Charge
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Prima Facie Case Dangerous Driving Causation Burden of Proof +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Muhammad Faaiz bin Mohammad Azmi

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Road Traffic / Appeal From Magistrate Decision; Judgment After Defence Stage (final Discharge at Defence Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case under Section 41(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987
  2. 2 Whether the accused drove at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public (dangerous driving/recklessness)
  3. 3 Whether there is a causal link between the accused's driving and the death of the victim

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove the second essential element (that the accused drove at a dangerous speed or in a manner dangerous to the public) beyond reasonable doubt; physical 'silent' evidence admitted multiple reasonable inferences and lacked objective/technical corroboration, therefore causation to the death was not established and the accused must be discharged under Section 41(1).

Court Disposition

Accused released and discharged; prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case under Section 41(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987.

Orders

  • Accused Muhammad Faaiz bin Mohammad Azmi is discharged and acquitted of the charge under Section 41(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987.
  • No alternative conviction under Section 43(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 is imposed (no amendment of charge was made).