YONG CHOO KIONG

YONG CHOO KIONG

Section 265A(2) and (3) CPC is a valid legislative provision that lawfully permits in-camera inquiry without the accused and counsel; the trial judge properly applied s.265A and s.20 Witness Protection Act 2009, and did not breach Articles 5(1) or 8(1) FC; s.182A CPC was complied with because the appellant's cautioned statement was in substance the same as his oral evidence; the trial judge's finding that PW15 was credible and her evidence was corroborated by contemporaneous distress calls, diary entries, police report, CCTV opportunity evidence and medical examination was sound and not to be disturbed; the additional evidence offered by defence was inadmissible hearsay and did not...

Citation
05(L)-30-03/2024(A) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: Yong Choo Kiong; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
L
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 October 2025
Case Number
05(L)-30-03/2024(A) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (rape Under Penal Code S.376(1)) / Final Appeal Decided by Federal Court (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Rape, Protected Witness Procedures (s.265 a Cpc), Witness Protection, Admissibility of Hearsay, Section 182 a CPC Compliance, Section 112 Statement, Corroboration and Distress Evidence, Admission of Fresh/additional Evidence, Constitutionality Challenges
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Forensic/medical Evidence Rape Protected Witness Procedures (s.265 a Cpc) Witness Protection +6 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yong Choo Kiong

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (rape Under Penal Code S.376(1)) / Final Appeal Decided by Federal Court (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.265A(2) and (3) CPC is valid and constitutional and whether denial of right to be heard breaches Articles 5(1) and 8(1) FC
  2. 2 Whether court complied with s.182A CPC by considering all evidence including appellant's s.112 statement
  3. 3 Whether PW15 (complainant) was a credible witness and whether her evidence was corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

Section 265A(2) and (3) CPC is a valid legislative provision that lawfully permits in-camera inquiry without the accused and counsel; the trial judge properly applied s.265A and s.20 Witness Protection Act 2009, and did not breach Articles 5(1) or 8(1) FC; s.182A CPC was complied with because the appellant's cautioned statement was in substance the same as his oral evidence; the trial judge's finding that PW15 was credible and her evidence was corroborated by contemporaneous distress calls, diary entries, police report, CCTV opportunity evidence and medical examination was sound and not to be disturbed; the additional evidence offered by defence was inadmissible hearsay and did not...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Conviction for rape under section 376(1) Penal Code affirmed
  • Sentence of 8 years' imprisonment and 2 strokes of the whip affirmed