[ ] 1. ) THENAGGARAO A/L THRAL RAO 2. ) SIVANAATHIREN A/L RAJENDRAN 3. ) GUNALAN A/L PARASURAMAN 4. ) VASUDEVAN A/L SHANDRASEGARAN

[ ] 1. ) THENAGGARAO A/L THRAL RAO 2. ) SIVANAATHIREN A/L RAJENDRAN 3. ) GUNALAN A/L PARASURAMAN 4. ) VASUDEVAN A/L SHANDRASEGARAN

Application dismissed because mere drafting/typing by defence counsel does not prove fabrication or tampering; challenges to the truth of the police reports are premature at this stage and the prosecution bears the burden to disprove the accuseds' versions; counsel validly appointed and constitutional right to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BL-45A-6-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWARAYA; Accused 1: THENAGGARAO A/L THRAL RAO; Accused 2: SIVANAATHIREN A/L RAJENDRAN; Accused 3: GUNALAN A/L PARASURAMAN; Accused 4: VASUDEVAN A/L SHANDRASEGARAN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 April 2022
Case Number
BL-45A-6-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offence Trial / Trial (prosecution Evidence Stage)
Outcome
Application by Selvam Shanmugam & Partners to disqualify Sivananthan Advocates & Solicitors dismissed; trial to continue; application for stay denied
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Counsel, Admissibility of Police Reports, Right to Counsel, Tampering With Evidence, Calling Counsel as Witness
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law Drug Offences Withdrawal of Counsel Admissibility of Police Reports Right to Counsel Tampering With Evidence +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWARAYA

Prosecution

THENAGGARAO A/L THRAL RAO

Accused 1

SIVANAATHIREN A/L RAJENDRAN

Accused 2

GUNALAN A/L PARASURAMAN

Accused 3

VASUDEVAN A/L SHANDRASEGARAN

Accused 4

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offence Trial / Trial (prosecution Evidence Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court may order opposing counsel to withdraw for drafting police reports
  2. 2 Whether police reports (IDD21, IDD22, IDD23) are admissible or can be challenged at this stage
  3. 3 Whether defence counsel fabricated police reports and thus must be called as witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because mere drafting/typing by defence counsel does not prove fabrication or tampering; challenges to the truth of the police reports are premature at this stage and the prosecution bears the burden to disprove the accuseds' versions; counsel validly appointed and constitutional right to counsel prevents removal absent evidence of misuse; stay refused and trial to proceed.

Court Disposition

Application by Selvam Shanmugam & Partners to disqualify Sivananthan Advocates & Solicitors dismissed; trial to continue; application for stay denied

Orders

  • Permohonan penggantungan prosiding (stay) ditolak