YONG CHOO KIONG

YONG CHOO KIONG

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge did not err in invoking s.265A CPC, accepted the victim as a credible witness supported by medical findings and CCTV opportunity evidence, found investigations adequate, and determined omission to expressly cite the cautioned statement was not fatal because its substance was considered; accordingly the conviction under s.376 Penal Code was affirmed but the sentence was reduced from 13 to 8 years imprisonment with two strokes of the cane.

Citation
A-05(SH)-317-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Yong Choo Kiong; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 March 2024
Case Number
A-05(SH)-317-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (rape) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal on conviction dismissed by majority; appeal on sentence allowed unanimously in part
Legal Topics
Rape, Protected Witness Provisions (s.265 a Cpc), Credibility Assessment, Cautioned Statements (s.112 Cpc), Judgment Drafting Obligations (s.182 a Cpc), Forensic/dna Evidence, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Rape Protected Witness Provisions (s.265 a Cpc) Credibility Assessment Cautioned Statements (s.112 Cpc) Judgment Drafting Obligations (s.182 a Cpc) +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yong Choo Kiong

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (rape) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in invoking s.265A CPC to allow anonymous evidence and thereby prejudiced the appellant's right to fair trial
  2. 2 Whether the victim's evidence was credible and corroborated sufficiently to support a rape conviction under s.376 Penal Code
  3. 3 Whether the police investigation was shoddy or incomplete such that it undermined the prosecution's case

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge did not err in invoking s.265A CPC, accepted the victim as a credible witness supported by medical findings and CCTV opportunity evidence, found investigations adequate, and determined omission to expressly cite the cautioned statement was not fatal because its substance was considered; accordingly the conviction under s.376 Penal Code was affirmed but the sentence was reduced from 13 to 8 years imprisonment with two strokes of the cane.

Court Disposition

Appeal on conviction dismissed by majority; appeal on sentence allowed unanimously in part

Orders

  • Conviction under section 376 Penal Code affirmed
  • Sentence varied: imprisonment reduced from 13 years to 8 years and two strokes of the cane