Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Common intention (s34)

Legal area

Court

3 Oct 2025

1. ) ALVIN RAJ A/L ANDREW ROY 2. ) MITHRA A/P R.SELVAKUMAR

Citation

BA-45A-19-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-19-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove beyond prima facie that either defendant had control, custody and knowledge of the methamphetamine or that they shared a common intention to traffic it; close proximity was insufficient, investigation was inadequate and material witnesses (the renter Xeno Cravier and arresting officers) were not called such that s114(g) was engaged; therefore no prima facie case and defendants acquitted.
18 Jun 2025

1. ) CHUA HOCK BENG 2. ) LEE KEE TEIK

Citation

KA-45A-38-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-38-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the prosecution proved the identity and chain of custody of the seized drugs, it failed to prove exclusive control, knowledge and a common intention linking the accused to distribution beyond reasonable doubt; multiple persons had access to the premises and the defence provided contemporaneous statements creating reasonable doubt, therefore conviction was unsafe and acquittal required.
6 Jun 2025

1. ) SOON PING KIONG 2. ) Miss Prakat Tachan (Thailand) (P)

Citation

BA-45A-43-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-43-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved identity and chain of custody of seized drugs; defendants' conduct (carrying the boxed drugs, opening secured entry, showing and keeping multiple luggage/bags in their residence accessible only to them) established custody, control and knowledge and satisfied elements of trafficking under s.2 and s.39B ADB; CCW allegations were hearsay or unrelated and did not create reasonable doubt; s.34 common intention and s.37(d) presumption applied; therefore defendants were rightly convicted and sentenced accordingly.
6 Jun 2025

1. ) SOON PING KIONG 2. ) Miss Prakat Tachan (Thailand) (P)

Citation

BA-45A-42-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-42-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution proved identity of drugs, an unbroken chain of custody, and facts from which the court properly inferred that OKT1 had custody, control and knowledge (observed carrying box, possessed keys, led police to luggage); OKT2 jointly occupied premises where drugs were openly stored and thus had knowledge and control; subsequent conduct and statutory presumptions support conviction for trafficking under s39B (and related counts); allegations regarding CCW did not create reasonable doubt because there was no evidential nexus or corroboration linking CCW to the seized items in this case.
29 Apr 2025

1. ) TIE SING HENG 2. ) DONNY TEO KEE CHUAN

Citation

BA-45A-62-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-62-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution established prima facie that seized Nimetazipam was controlled substance and that defendants had custody/control and requisite knowledge (access card/CCTV, keys, personal effects, open/unsealed packaging, quantity and packaging consistent with distribution) and acted with common intention; therefore defendants guilty under s39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 read with s39B(2) and s34 Penal Code.
26 Mar 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) KAMARUZAMAN BIN ISMAIL 2. ) MUHAMMAD ARMIRUL BIN KAMARUZAMAN 3. ) AHMAD SHAHARUDDIN BIN SULAIMAN 4. ) MUHAMMAD IQBAL BIN CHE AZIZAN 5. ) S NAIMAH BINTI MAJID

Citation

CB-45A-20-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45A-20-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to discharge its burden to establish a prima facie case against all five accused because it did not prove that each accused had the requisite possession, control and knowledge of the seized drugs nor established common intention under s34; statutory presumptions of trafficking under s37(da) could not be applied in favour of conviction given the absence of proof of possession/control and unresolved issues about persons present and the circumstances of discovery; accordingly the accused were discharged without being called on to enter defence.
13 Feb 2025

[Jabatan Peguam Negara] VEDANAYAGAN A/L JONSON

Citation

BA-45-7-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45-7-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On maximum evaluation the court accepted prosecution witnesses and chemical analysis; the seized purple bag was pointed out and handed over by the first accused after police warning, linkage by proximity, packaging similarity and number of packets established possession, knowledge and intent to distribute for the first accused under s2 and s39B DDA 1952 and joint intent under s34; chain of custody and weight variances did not create reasonable doubt; original investigator's absence for health reasons did not prejudice prosecution; second accused lacked nexus to the purple bag and therefore ac…
18 Dec 2024

Kevin Liang Chin Boon [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-140-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-140-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the totality of evidence the Court of Appeal found prosecution proved possession and common intention beyond reasonable doubt; the innocent carrier defence failed because the second appellant had reasonable suspicions and opportunity to inspect the bag and deliberately refrained (wilful blindness); official witnesses' evidence was reliable; conviction under s39B(1)(a) upheld, but pursuant to discretionary sentencing post-Act 846 the second appellant's death sentence was commuted to imprisonment of 30 years and 12 strokes.
6 Dec 2024

1. ) ITH EAMY 2. ) DIONG YEOU CHIN

Citation

BL-62ATIP-65-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-62ATIP-65-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held that prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of trafficking under section 12 ATIPSOM: acquisition and retention of labour, exploitation in the form of forced labour and debt bondage, exercise of coercion (including abduction, threats, detention and withholding of passports), and common intention between the two accused; accordingly both accused were convicted under section 12 and sentenced, and statutory compensation under s66A was awarded to each victim based on harm, loss and defendants' capacity to pay.
6 Dec 2024

1. ) ITH EAMY 2. ) DIONG YEOU CHIN

Citation

BL-62ATIP-66-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-62ATIP-66-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that defendants jointly trafficked the Cambodian victims for labour exploitation: victims were smuggled, had passports retained, worked without permits, lived in degraded collective accommodation, endured excessive hours, wage deductions and debt bondage, and were subject to threats and physical restraint; coercion and exploitation elements under s2 and s12 ATIPSOM were satisfied and common intention established under s34; defendants convicted and sentenced and ordered to pay statutory compensation under s66A read with relevant pr…