Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of forensic evidence

Legal area

Court

15 Jul 2024

KHOR BOON SIEW [TIMBALAN ]

Citation

AA-41S-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-41S-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the charge was not defective because the particulars and evidence pointed to alcohol only, the conviction could not stand because the blood sample evidence was undermined by critical flaws in handling and chain of custody (notably absence of preservatives and gaps in documentation), such that the prosecution failed to prove intoxication beyond reasonable doubt; identity of driver was upheld on police reports and witness evidence but unreliable forensic proof required acquittal on the intoxication offence.
27 Jul 2023

MUHAMAD SHAHARUDIN BIN SHAIK ALUDEEN

Citation

RA-41H(A)-2-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

RA-41H(A)-2-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appellate court found no error in the magistrate's positive evaluation: prosecution complied with statutory procedures, chain of custody and forensic analysis confirmed presence of THC, statutory presumption under s37(k) applied, defence evidence failed to raise reasonable doubt; therefore conviction under s15(1)(a) ADB and sentence were properly upheld.
26 Jun 2023

GOH CHENG CHENG

Citation

AB-83D-693-07/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AB-83D-693-07/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Because there was a material, unexplained discrepancy in the serial number identifying the accused's urine bottle and the prosecution failed to investigate or explain the amendment or produce the original exhibit, the identity of the sample was in doubt and the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case; the accused was therefore discharged at the close of the prosecution case under s173(f)(ii) CPC.
30 Jun 2022

MOHD SABRI BIN MOHD RAZALI

Citation

NH-82D-3-02/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NH-82D-3-02/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because the urine sample was sent to pathology 12 days after receipt and was stored at room temperature in a locked cabinet rather than refrigerated at 2–8°C; absence of documentary support for the delay and gaps in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to sample integrity, therefore evidence was insufficient to call the accused to answer the charge under s15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
11 Nov 2019

SAMSUL ARIFIN BIN BAKAR

Citation

A-06B-84-11/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

A-06B-84-11/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Failure by the prosecution to prove that it was not practicable for a medical officer to obtain the urine specimen under s31A(1A) is not fatal to admissibility; s31A(1A) is a preservation provision and police officers on the ground may lawfully require urine where practicability considerations justify preservation of evidence; administrative IGSO requirements do not invalidate samples; accordingly the acquittal based on alleged s31A(1A) non‑compliance was reversed and the respondent must be called to enter his defence.

Malaysia Case Law

KHOR BOON SIEW [TIMBALAN ]

MUHAMAD SHAHARUDIN BIN SHAIK ALUDEEN

GOH CHENG CHENG

MOHD SABRI BIN MOHD RAZALI

SAMSUL ARIFIN BIN BAKAR