1. MOHD ARIF BIN AB RAHMAN 2. AHMAD ZUKHAIRI BIN MOHD ARIF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

1. MOHD ARIF BIN AB RAHMAN 2. AHMAD ZUKHAIRI BIN MOHD ARIF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: identifications and corroborating evidence proved the appellants' involvement in corruption and abetment; the second appellant's alibi was discredited by positive eyewitness identification; appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption under MACC Act s50 on a balance of probabilities; the statutory misdescription in the trial judge's reasoning was harmless and curable under CPC s422; sentences were not manifestly excessive and are upheld.

Citation
WA-42(R)(A)-4-11/2018; WA-42R-13-11/2018; WA-42R-14-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
First Appellant / Accused: Mohd Arif bin Ab Rahman; Second Appellant / Accused: Ahmad Zukhairi bin Mohd Arif; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
R
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 March 2021
Case Number
WA-42(R)(A)-4-11/2018; WA-42R-13-11/2018; WA-42R-14-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appellate Judgment Affirming Sessions Court Convictions and Sentences
Legal Topics
Alibi, Abetment, Bribery, Presumption Under Section 50 MACC Act, Standard of Appellate Review on Credibility, Misdirection Curable Under CPC S422
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Evidence Procedure Sentencing Alibi Abetment Bribery +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Arif bin Ab Rahman

First Appellant / Accused

Ahmad Zukhairi bin Mohd Arif

Second Appellant / Accused

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appellate Judgment Affirming Sessions Court Convictions and Sentences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants' alibi raised reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether elements of abetment and corruption under MACC Act s16 were proved
  3. 3 Whether prosecution rebutted presumption under MACC Act s50 on balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: identifications and corroborating evidence proved the appellants' involvement in corruption and abetment; the second appellant's alibi was discredited by positive eyewitness identification; appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption under MACC Act s50 on a balance of probabilities; the statutory misdescription in the trial judge's reasoning was harmless and curable under CPC s422; sentences were not manifestly excessive and are upheld.