[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] LIM POO TECK

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] LIM POO TECK

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in acquitting the Respondent at the close of the prosecution case despite finding the act constituting murder proved because medical opinion alone at that stage cannot supplant the requirement to call the accused to enter his defence and prove legal insanity; the defence must be called and the court must evaluate all evidence including defence evidence before determining legal insanity, therefore the acquittal was set aside and the case remitted to the High Court for continuation and for the Respondent to enter his defence.

Citation
W-05(LB)-519-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Public Prosecutor; Respondent: Lim Poo Teck
Court
LB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 November 2023
Case Number
W-05(LB)-519-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Remitting Case to High Court for Continuation of Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of acquittal and discharge set aside; matter remitted to High Court for continuation of trial and for Respondent to be called to enter his defence; Respondent remanded in prison until trial.
Legal Topics
Insanity Defence, Section 84 Penal Code, Acquittal at Close of Prosecution, Burden of Proof Under Evidence Act, Remittal and Detention Under Section 348 Criminal Procedure Code
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Mental Health Law Criminal Procedure Insanity Defence Section 84 Penal Code Acquittal at Close of Prosecution Burden of Proof Under Evidence Act +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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Appellant

Lim Poo Teck

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Remitting Case to High Court for Continuation of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in acquitting the accused at the close of the prosecution case on the ground of unsoundness of mind
  2. 2 Whether medical expert opinion alone justifies acquittal at the prosecution stage
  3. 3 Whether the accused bears the burden to prove insanity on the balance of probabilities under section 105 Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in acquitting the Respondent at the close of the prosecution case despite finding the act constituting murder proved because medical opinion alone at that stage cannot supplant the requirement to call the accused to enter his defence and prove legal insanity; the defence must be called and the court must evaluate all evidence including defence evidence before determining legal insanity, therefore the acquittal was set aside and the case remitted to the High Court for continuation and for the Respondent to enter his defence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of acquittal and discharge set aside; matter remitted to High Court for continuation of trial and for Respondent to be called to enter his defence; Respondent remanded in prison until trial.

Orders

  • Orders of acquittal and discharge set aside
  • Case remitted to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur before the same judge for continuation of trial