Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Identification (acupakai)

  • 14 Nov 2025

    NGOOI ESING

    Citation
    BA-45-10-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45-10-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because critical elements were not proved: exclusive possession/control and knowledge were not established for the seized parcels and items; key identification evidence (acupakai) was inadmissible or unreliable due to failure to give required warnings and lack of contemporaneous records; mobile phone/waybill linkage lacked provenance and chain of custody; alternative explanations (Ivan Lee = Chong Je Long, access by others) created reasonable doubt — therefore accused acquitted without being called to enter defence.

  • 14 Nov 2025

    NGOOI ESING

    Citation
    BA-45A-7-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-7-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Applying s.180 CPC the court performed a maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all charges: critical deficiencies existed in proving exclusive possession/control and knowledge across the three loci (parcels opened at ARAMEX by staff, unreliable provenance of mobile phone and clothing, failure to give warnings before acupakai, gaps in chain of custody and contemporaneous records). On that basis the accused was acquitted and discharged without being called to enter defence.