NOOR HISHAM BIN MD NAWI

NOOR HISHAM BIN MD NAWI

The High Court refused the appeal because the trial magistrate properly evaluated the totality of evidence: omissions in P8 were not fatal, SP3 was not an accomplice and was credible, the written statement complied with s.402B and its admission was not erroneous, and the sentence was proportionate given the seriousness of s.379A and the aggravation of the offender being a police officer; accordingly conviction and sentence were upheld.

Citation
DA-41S-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (accused): Noor Hisham bin Md Nawi; Respondent (public Prosecutor): Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 March 2022
Case Number
DA-41S-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence to High Court From Magistrate Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Theft of Motor Vehicle (s.379 a Penal Code), Admissibility of Written Witness Statements (s.402 B Cpc), Accomplice Evidence and Corroboration (s.114 Evidence Act), Role of First Information Report, Replacement of Sentence With Bond (s.173 a Cpc)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Sentencing Theft of Motor Vehicle (s.379 a Penal Code) Admissibility of Written Witness Statements (s.402 B Cpc) Accomplice Evidence and Corroboration (s.114 Evidence Act) Role of First Information Report +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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noor Hisham bin Md Nawi

Appellant (accused)

Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)

Respondent (public Prosecutor)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence to High Court From Magistrate Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether omission of accused's name and details in the first information report (P8) fatally undermines prosecution case
  2. 2 Whether SP3 is an accomplice whose testimony requires corroboration and whether SP3 is credible
  3. 3 Whether the written witness statement of SP3 complied with s.402B CPC and was admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court refused the appeal because the trial magistrate properly evaluated the totality of evidence: omissions in P8 were not fatal, SP3 was not an accomplice and was credible, the written statement complied with s.402B and its admission was not erroneous, and the sentence was proportionate given the seriousness of s.379A and the aggravation of the offender being a police officer; accordingly conviction and sentence were upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Conviction under section 379A Penal Code upheld
  • Sentence of 2 years imprisonment upheld