Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to counsel

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2024

Yousaf Gul [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

BA-42JSKH-2-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42JSKH-2-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the guilty plea was valid and safely accepted because the charge and factual basis were explained to the appellant in Pashto via an interpreter, the appellant personally admitted the facts without qualification, there was corroborative evidence (ID parade, medical reports, witness identification), and proceeding without defence counsel on that occasion did not occasion a failure of justice given the counsel's repeated non-attendance and the court's compliance with procedural safeguards; conviction and sentence were therefore upheld.
5 Oct 2023

EMRAN BIN ABD SANI

Citation

WA-42H-14-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42H-14-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Conviction and sentence were set aside because the accused was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to secure counsel given the pandemic and detention, and because material evidentiary defects (no photographs of the lavatory and irreconcilable discrepancies in signatures on the urine specimen documentation) rendered the conviction unsafe; these combined defects warranted appellate intervention under section 316 CPC.
31 Jul 2023

HO CHUNG MENG ASP CHE INTAN BINTI SUBRI

Citation

KA-44-15-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-44-15-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found statutory non-compliance: next-of-kin notification requirement under s5(1)(a) was not fulfilled and access to counsel was improperly delayed beyond the single 48-hour period without valid authorization, and there was ambiguity as to arrest date affecting detention computation. However, because the Applicant had been charged and was remanded by a court of competent jurisdiction before hearing, the High Court held it could not grant a writ of habeas corpus to release a person currently detained pursuant to a court remand; application was therefore dismissed despite identified proced…
31 Jul 2023

HO CHUNG MENG ASP CHE INTAN BINTI SUBRI

Citation

KA-44-15-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-44-15-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found failures in compliance with SOSMA: next-of-kin notification was not properly effected and counsel access was unlawfully delayed beyond the single 48-hour authorization; arrest date ambiguity raised risk of excessive detention. However, because the applicant had been charged and remanded by a court before relief could be executed, the High Court concluded it could not grant an effective writ of habeas corpus to free a person detained under a judicial remand order; accordingly the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
14 Aug 2022

ZAMRI BIN SETAPA

Citation

DA-44-26-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-44-26-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Respondents failed to discharge burden to prove legality of detention because they did not produce corroborative documentary evidence, gave conflicting accounts on whether applicant was released and informed of rights, and therefore applicant's Article 5 rights were breached; the procedural defect tainted the entire detention process and required immediate release.
22 Jun 2022

Tetuan Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

05(L)-101-09/2020(C) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

L
Case number

05(L)-101-09/2020(C) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The appeal is dismissed: a law firm is not entitled, merely by producing bills and showing it represented the defendant, to payment of legal fees from property which is the proceeds of an unlawful activity; a third-party claimant must prove all the cumulative elements of section 61(4) on the balance of probabilities; unwritten appellate decisions do not bind lower courts; section 44 freezing provisions do not authorize payment in forfeiture proceedings; permitting payment would defeat the Act's object of preventing beneficiaries of unlawful proceeds from enjoying them.
8 Apr 2022

[ ] 1. ) THENAGGARAO A/L THRAL RAO 2. ) SIVANAATHIREN A/L RAJENDRAN 3. ) GUNALAN A/L PARASURAMAN 4. ) VASUDEVAN A/L SHANDRASEGARAN

Citation

BL-45A-6-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-45A-6-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because mere drafting/typing by defence counsel does not prove fabrication or tampering; challenges to the truth of the police reports are premature at this stage and the prosecution bears the burden to disprove the accuseds' versions; counsel validly appointed and constitutional right to counsel prevents removal absent evidence of misuse; stay refused and trial to proceed.
10 Feb 2022

MOHAMAD AMRI BIN ZAKARIA 1. PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. PENGUASA KANAN, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK, SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Citation

WA-44-189-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-189-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No procedural non‑compliance was established: the APJ and its regulations do not mandate supplying a copy of the recorded statement; section 21A permits withholding in the public interest; the applicant was informed of and offered counsel and elected to proceed; therefore the advisory board process complied with statutory procedure and habeas corpus is not warranted.
14 Jul 2021

ANITA BINTI CHE ABDUL RAHMAN KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI, PUSAT PENTADBIRAN KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN PUTRAJAYA

Citation

25-17-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

25-17-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to establish procedural non-compliance: the investigating officer and inquiry officer provided satisfactory, fact-specific explanations for the timing of the report and inquiry such that any delay was not inordinate; there is no positive evidence the applicant requested counsel and was unreasonably denied access; and absent procedural breach the court will not overturn the Deputy Minister's satisfaction under the Special Preventive Act. Therefore the application for judicial review must be dismissed.
14 Jul 2021

ANITA BINTI CHE ABDUL RAHMAN 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGERI SELANGOR

Citation

BA-25-17-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-17-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to demonstrate inordinate delay because investigating and inquiry officers provided credible, practical explanations for timing; applicant did not establish she requested access to counsel and was unreasonably denied; no procedural non-compliance in the making of the restriction order under s6(3); therefore judicial review dismissed.