[ ] MOHD ROZANI BIN YAHAYA

[ ] MOHD ROZANI BIN YAHAYA

The Federal Court held the trial judge and Court of Appeal erred in acquitting the accused at the end of the prosecution case without calling the defence because the accused had not discharged the burden to prove legal insanity under section 84 or intoxication-induced insanity under section 85(2)(b); medical evidence alone was insufficient to establish legal insanity and the proper procedure is to continue the trial and call the accused to enter his defence; accordingly the appellate courts' acquittals were set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for continuation.

Citation
05(LB)-117-11/2023(D) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: Public Prosecutor; Respondent: Mohd Rozani bin Yahaya
Court
LB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 October 2024
Case Number
05(LB)-117-11/2023(D) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Murder / Appeal to Federal Court Allowed; Remitted to High Court for Continuation and Accused to Be Called to Enter Defence
Outcome
Appeal allowed. High Court and Court of Appeal decisions set aside.
Legal Topics
Insanity Defence, Intoxication Induced Insanity, Burden of Proof, Medical Vs Legal Insanity, Calling Defence at Trial, Forensic Psychiatric Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Insanity Defence Intoxication Induced Insanity Burden of Proof Medical Vs Legal Insanity +2 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 7 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Appellant

Mohd Rozani bin Yahaya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Murder / Appeal to Federal Court Allowed; Remitted to High Court for Continuation and Accused to Be Called to Enter Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge could acquit at the end of the prosecution case without calling the accused to enter his defence
  2. 2 Whether the accused had established legal insanity under section 84 Penal Code or insanity by reason of intoxication under section 85(2)(b) Penal Code
  3. 3 Proper allocation of burden of proof when insanity is raised

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court held the trial judge and Court of Appeal erred in acquitting the accused at the end of the prosecution case without calling the defence because the accused had not discharged the burden to prove legal insanity under section 84 or intoxication-induced insanity under section 85(2)(b); medical evidence alone was insufficient to establish legal insanity and the proper procedure is to continue the trial and call the accused to enter his defence; accordingly the appellate courts' acquittals were set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for continuation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. High Court and Court of Appeal decisions set aside.

Orders

  • Set aside the High Court acquittal and the Court of Appeal affirmation
  • Remit the case to the High Court for continuation of trial