Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial misdirection

Legal area

Court

17 May 2024

PETER PAUL A/L SANTANAM [ ]

Citation

PA-41S-1-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-41S-1-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Magistrate failed to discharge the mandatory duty to consider and evaluate all defence evidence at the close of trial (breach of s173(m)(i)/s182A(1) CPC), treating the defence as a bare denial without analysis; that serious misdirection rendered the conviction unsafe and could not be cured by s422 CPC; although the amended charge contained duplicity it did not cause prejudice because the defence knew the case to meet it, therefore conviction and sentence were quashed and appellant acquitted.
15 Nov 2021

TAN WEI CIAN CECILY KEE LING LING

Citation

WA-12BNCVC-24-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCVC-24-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed and the Sessions Court judgment set aside because the Statement of Claim improperly joined multiple distinct causes of action without leave or nexus, failed to particularise misrepresentations as required by the Rules, and the learned Sessions Judge committed serious misdirection by resolving admissibility in his grounds of judgment after trial, rendering the trial a mistrial.
16 Oct 2019

KOONG SWEE KWAN

Citation

W-05(M)-494-10/2017 & W-05(SH)-516-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

W-05(M)-494-10/2017 & W-05(SH)-516-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court accepted the unshaken, reliable eyewitness identifications of SP13 and SP14 together with corroborative circumstantial evidence (SP3, SP15 and CCTV stills) and forensic findings; any misdirection about whether the defence was put to witnesses was not material and did not cause a miscarriage of justice under s60 Courts of Judicature Act 1964; accordingly the convictions for murder and attempted murder and the sentences were safe and affirmed.
28 Jun 2019

ILAVARASAN A/L AURUMUGAM & 1 YANG LAIN

Citation

42H-112-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

42H-112-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court held prosecution failed to establish that SP1 was exploited by forced labour: evidence showed voluntary lawful entry, an express employment contract, part of salary paid to agent, provision of accommodation and necessities, regular contact with family and lack of coercion; Session Court judge misdirected herself by failing to properly evaluate SP1's evidence; therefore no prima facie case under s.12 ATIP and conviction could not safely stand.

Malaysia Case Law

PETER PAUL A/L SANTANAM [ ]

TAN WEI CIAN CECILY KEE LING LING

KOONG SWEE KWAN

ILAVARASAN A/L AURUMUGAM & 1 YANG LAIN