Suhaimi Bin Alias [ ]

Suhaimi Bin Alias [ ]

Conviction and sentence were upheld because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant participated in the abduction and confinement of victims for ransom; identification by victim and raiding officer, corroborated dock identifications, bank deposit evidence and the application of section 34 Penal Code (common intention) established liability even absent direct proof that appellant personally made the ransom demand; sentencing to life imprisonment and ten lashes was lawful and was only varied to commence from the date of arrest (16.3.2014).

Citation
B-05(H)-53-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Suhaimi bin Alias; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
H
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 March 2022
Case Number
B-05(H)-53-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Decided)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed subject to variation of commencement date of life imprisonment to 16 March 2014.
Legal Topics
Kidnapping for Ransom, Identification Evidence, Common Intention (section 34 Penal Code), Mat V PP Directions, Malappropriation of Deposits, Charge Selection (section 365 Penal Code Vs Kidnapping Act)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Kidnapping Act Evidence Sentencing Kidnapping for Ransom Identification Evidence Common Intention (section 34 Penal Code) Mat V PP Directions +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suhaimi bin Alias

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Decided)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was credible evidence to establish prima facie case
  2. 2 Whether identification of appellant was reliable
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved who made the ransom demand

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction and sentence were upheld because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant participated in the abduction and confinement of victims for ransom; identification by victim and raiding officer, corroborated dock identifications, bank deposit evidence and the application of section 34 Penal Code (common intention) established liability even absent direct proof that appellant personally made the ransom demand; sentencing to life imprisonment and ten lashes was lawful and was only varied to commence from the date of arrest (16.3.2014).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed subject to variation of commencement date of life imprisonment to 16 March 2014.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction for kidnapping for ransom under section 3(1) Kidnapping Act 1961 (Revised 1989) affirmed