Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Obstruction of public servant

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2025

RAJENDRAN A/L KRISHNAN [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)]

Citation

BA-41S(A)-2-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

BA-41S(A)-2-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal in relation to charge P4 (section 186 Penal Code) because the charge as framed was fatally defective for failing to include the essential element that the public servant was discharging his public functions; that omission misled the accused and caused failure of justice, requiring quashing of the conviction and sentence under section 316 CPC (with reliance on section 422 principles). The conviction and sentence for P5 (section 14 Minor Offences Act) were upheld.
29 Oct 2023

MUHAMAD ZAIM SYAFIQ BIN MD THANY

Citation

JI-83-395-10/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JI-83-395-10/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to prove the essential mens rea element that the accused intentionally obstructed the police; the CCTV and witness evidence permitted an alternative inference that the accused did not know the approaching persons were police, so no prima facie case was made out and the accused was acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case.
6 Apr 2023

Lo Kok Soon

Citation

AB-83-251-06/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AB-83-251-06/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found that although a prima facie case was made and the accused was ordered to enter his defence, on evaluation of defence evidence the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily obstructed a public servant in the discharge of his public duty under s.186; defence raised reasonable doubt and the accused was therefore acquitted and discharged.
8 Sept 2022

MOHAMAD ALIF SYAZWAN BIN ROSLAN

Citation

WA-82-23-04/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-82-23-04/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court found prosecution proved a prima facie case; prosecution witnesses were credible; omission of 'voluntarily' was amendable; the assault and obstruction allegations arose from the same act so conviction was entered on Section 353 (assault on public servant) and acquittal entered on the overlapping Section 186 charge to avoid double jeopardy; accused convicted for breach of COVID-19 movement regulation; court imposed a non-custodial bond for the assault and a fine with imprisonment alternative for the regulatory breach in view of mitigating factors and first offender status.
11 Dec 2020

1. ) Ten Kok Weng 2. ) Pendakwaraya 1. ) Pendakwaraya 2. ) Ten Kok Weng

Citation

WA-41S-19-11/2019 dan WA-41H-54-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-41S-19-11/2019 dan WA-41H-54-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The charge under section 186 was defective because it omitted the essential mens rea element of voluntariness; a charge that fails to allege every ingredient of the offence does not disclose an offence and conviction and sentence must be quashed and the accused acquitted.
9 Dec 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Timbalan Chow Hai Guan

Citation

BH83-1928-12/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BH83-1928-12/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Accused validly pleaded guilty to three offences (s.186 Penal Code; s.14 Minor Offences Act 1955; s.90 Police Act 1967). Given the deliberate and aggressive conduct throughout (failure to stop, abusive language, provoking while handcuffed, kicking and shouting in police station) and public interest in deterring obstruction and abuse of public servants, custodial sentences were justified. Sentences: 4 months imprisonment under s.186 and 1 month under s.90 to run concurrently from date of arrest; RM100 fine under s.14 (14 days default). Application to suspend execution pending appeal refused be…
13 Sept 2019

PENDAKWARAYA ABDUL KHALIQ BIN NAZERI UCHECHUKWU MIRACLE UKAEGBU

Citation

WA-83-7234-09/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-83-7234-09/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court affirmed conviction and the five-month custodial sentence because the accused pleaded guilty but offered no mitigation, physically pushed police officers thereby undermining public order, and public interest justified a custodial sentence with a one-third reduction for the guilty plea resulting in five months' imprisonment from date of arrest.
13 Sept 2019

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA 1. ) KARTIGHES A/L RAJA MANICKAM 2. ) NATHAN A/L MUNUSAMY

Citation

PA-83-688-07/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PA-83-688-07/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The charge was defective because it omitted the essential mens rea element required by Section 186 and this omission could not be cured under Section 422; additionally the prosecution failed to prove mens rea and conducted an incomplete investigation (failure to call a key witness), therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused were discharged and acquitted.