Muhamad Ridha Bin Baharudin

Muhamad Ridha Bin Baharudin

The Court allowed the accused's appeal because the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: PW4's material contradiction between his oral evidence and police report regarding when the sling bag was thrown, his refusal to answer defence questions about a co-accused's arrest, and negative fingerprint results on the exhibit collectively destroyed the credibility and strength of the prosecution case so that the defence need not be called and the conviction was unsafe; the Public Prosecutor's cross-appeal was dismissed.

Citation
W-05(SH)-560-11/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant and Cross Respondent: Muhamad Ridha Bin Baharudin; Respondent and Cross Appellant: Public Prosecutor
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Case Number
W-05(SH)-560-11/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal and Cross Appeal Under the Court of Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction) / Supplementary Judgment Disposing Appeals
Outcome
Accused's appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; Public Prosecutor's cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trafficking in Controlled Substances, Prima Facie Proof, Witness Credibility, Police Arrest and Seizure, Fingerprint Corroboration, Right to Be Heard on Novel Jurisprudence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Procedure Trafficking in Controlled Substances Prima Facie Proof Witness Credibility Police Arrest and Seizure +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhamad Ridha Bin Baharudin

Appellant and Cross Respondent

Public Prosecutor

Respondent and Cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal and Cross Appeal Under the Court of Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction) / Supplementary Judgment Disposing Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused for trafficking cannabis
  2. 2 Whether contradictions between PW4's oral evidence and police report undermine credibility and proof
  3. 3 Whether PW4's refusal to answer defence questions caused prejudice and justified acquittal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the accused's appeal because the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: PW4's material contradiction between his oral evidence and police report regarding when the sling bag was thrown, his refusal to answer defence questions about a co-accused's arrest, and negative fingerprint results on the exhibit collectively destroyed the credibility and strength of the prosecution case so that the defence need not be called and the conviction was unsafe; the Public Prosecutor's cross-appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Accused's appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; Public Prosecutor's cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction set aside
  • Accused acquitted and discharged