Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Miscarriage of justice

Legal area

Court

3 Dec 2025

TAN EE SENG

Citation

PB-44-6-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PB-44-6-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The charge satisfied ss.152 and 153 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah and clearly stated the elements of s.471 Penal Code; s.154 was inapplicable because the particulars given were sufficient; disputed factual issues about the document's genuineness must be resolved at full trial; there was no evidence of abuse of process or miscarriage of justice to warrant exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction; therefore the application to quash was dismissed and the case remitted to the Sessions Court.
8 Aug 2025

MOHD.FHADLI BIN MHD.ROSDI

Citation

PA-82D-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PA-82D-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Because the Court of Appeal had already found a prima facie case and called the accused to defend, the trial court's task was limited to determining whether the defence raised a reasonable doubt. The prosecution's failure to preserve and produce original Exhibit P6 for inspection by the accused at defence stage materially prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial; that prejudice established a reasonable doubt and amounted to a miscarriage of justice, warranting discharge and acquittal at the close of defence.
7 May 2025

ASIHAR BIN KAMARUDDIN

Citation

AA-42JSKS-3-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42JSKS-3-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court materially misdirected itself by finding the appellant's defence was not put to prosecution witnesses when the record shows it was; coupled with the prosecution's failure to prove the complainant was under 18, these errors created reasonable doubt and a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly conviction unsafe and set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged; prosecution's sentence appeal dismissed.
5 Aug 2024

SHARIFFA SABRINA BINTI SYED AKIL

Citation

CB-44-5-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-44-5-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because applicant failed to demonstrate that the prosecution's decision to charge her (under section 425(1)(a) National Land Code) amounted to an unlawful exercise of prosecutorial power, mala fide conduct, or a breach of Article 5 sufficient to trigger the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to quash the charges; inherent jurisdiction is exceptional, statutory remedies and trial procedures (including section 173(g) KPJ) are available, and the affidavits did not establish abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.
18 Aug 2023

KALIYA PERUMAL A/L PONNUSAMY [ ]

Citation

N-09(H)-225-06/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

H
Case number

N-09(H)-225-06/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the conviction was unsafe because the plea-taking process was defective: inconsistent contemporaneous notes and the Magistrate's questioning induced fear and pressure, producing an equivocal plea. The Magistrate failed to fulfil the mandatory duty under section 173 CPC to ensure an unequivocal, informed plea. Consequently the High Court's order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Magistrate's Court for trial.
31 Mar 2023

DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN HJ ABDUL RAZAK

Citation

05(RJ)-11-09/2022(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

RJ
Case number

05(RJ)-11-09/2022(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Refusal by the earlier Federal Court panel to grant a bona fide adjournment and its order preventing counsel from discharging himself resulted in the applicant being effectively unrepresented at the hearing, causing a denial of the right to a fair hearing and a miscarriage of justice; accordingly a review under Rule 137 was justified and Motion No.2 is allowed, with consequences including acquittal and discharge.
8 Nov 2022

TUAN MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM BIN TUAN NAZRI [ ]

Citation

DA-41S-10-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-41S-10-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the procedural irregularity of charges being filed in two cases and heard together did not cause a miscarriage of justice and was curable under s.422 KTJ; the magistrate had applied the correct prima facie standard and the prosecution evidence was sufficient to call the appellant to enter his defence; the appellant's explanation was a bare denial unsupported by evidence; sentencing was appropriate considering aggravating factors; consequently both appeals were dismissed and convictions and sentences upheld.
12 May 2022

ABDUL AZIZ BIN ISMAIL [ ]

Citation

AB-42S-1-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-42S-1-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal court found the charge materially defective because the particulars describe acts amounting to outrage of modesty under section 354 while the prosecution charged attempted rape under section 376(3) read with section 511; the accused was thereby misled and suffered an unfair trial. Further, the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had progressed beyond preparation to an attempt to rape; accordingly there was miscarriage of justice and the conviction was quashed with the accused acquitted and discharged.
13 Apr 2022

ONG TEE HONG [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

T-05(M)-435-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

T-05(M)-435-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the totality of admissible direct and circumstantial evidence the prosecution proved custody, control and knowledge for all five counts; the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da) applied to the 77.74g heroin count and the appellant failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; no impermissible double presumption was applied and any omission to use the precise words 'guilty' did not occasion a miscarriage of justice; convictions and sentences are therefore safe and affirmed.
29 Oct 2021

1. ) RAHIM BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 2. ) HALIM BIN NOR

Citation

PA-42S-30-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-42S-30-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Material contradictions in the prosecution case concerning the timing of the raid and the provenance of the seized packets, together with an unexplained change of dates in the investigator's account and failure to afford the accused the opportunity to cross-examine after the prosecution was permitted to elicit additional clarifying evidence, meant the prosecution had not proved a prima facie case; the trial judge therefore erred and the convictions and sentences were quashed and the appellants acquitted and discharged.