ROEZRIL BIN RAMDAN ALI [TIMBALAN ]

ROEZRIL BIN RAMDAN ALI [TIMBALAN ]

The High Court upheld the trial judge's findings that in‑court identification of the appellant by SP1 and SP2 was reliable given proximity, duration, lighting and conduct at the scene; absence of evidence from the pawnbroker/disposer was not fatal nor did s114(g) apply; the appellant's alibi failed for want of prior notice, internal contradictions and lack of corroboration, therefore conviction and sentence were safe and must be affirmed.

Citation
BA-42S-23-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Roezril bin Ramdan Ali; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 October 2023
Case Number
BA-42S-23-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Robbery, Identification Evidence, Alibi, Presumption Under Evidence Act, Criminal Procedure Notice of Alibi, Sentence Imprisonment and Corporal Punishment
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Robbery Identification Evidence Alibi Presumption Under Evidence Act Criminal Procedure Notice of Alibi Sentence Imprisonment and Corporal Punishment

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roezril bin Ramdan Ali

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether identification evidence by victims was reliable and sufficient to establish a prima facie case
  2. 2 Whether absence of testimony from person who disposed of stolen property (Aida Adnan) invokes s114(g) Evidence Act presumption
  3. 3 Whether appellant's alibi was valid given failure to give notice under s402A and contradictions in testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the trial judge's findings that in‑court identification of the appellant by SP1 and SP2 was reliable given proximity, duration, lighting and conduct at the scene; absence of evidence from the pawnbroker/disposer was not fatal nor did s114(g) apply; the appellant's alibi failed for want of prior notice, internal contradictions and lack of corroboration, therefore conviction and sentence were safe and must be affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and sentence of eight years imprisonment and five strokes of the rotan affirmed