Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Speaking judgment requirement

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2023

Muhammad Azizul Hakim Bin Hasnan [Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM)]

Citation

AA-42(R)(A)-2-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

R
Case number

AA-42(R)(A)-2-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Sessions Court correctly applied the prima facie test, the presumption under s50(1) ASPRM arose and was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities by the appellants, the charges were not defective and adequately reflected joint conduct, the Sessions judgment was reasoned, and the sentences and fines imposed were within proper discretionary limits; accordingly the appeals were dismissed and convictions and sentences affirmed.
9 Dec 2021

1. ) SHAHFIQ BIN KHARIDAN 2. ) MUHAMAD NORLIZAM BIN ALI

Citation

CA-42(R)(A)-1-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

R
Case number

CA-42(R)(A)-1-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed because the trial judge failed to provide a speaking judgment and did not perform the required maximal evaluation of prosecution evidence to establish a prima facie case under s180(4) CPC before calling the accused to defend; that failure rendered the convictions unsafe and warranted quashing of conviction and sentence.
12 Jul 2021

CORSA TECH SDN. BHD. 1. YTB IMPRESSION SDN. BHD. & 2 LAGI

Citation

BA-12BC-8-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BC-8-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Successor judge validly continued the part‑heard trial under O35 r11; absence of a speaking judgment does not automatically invalidate outcome but requires appellate scrutiny of the record; consultants appointed by the employer did not owe a duty of care to the contractor in the circumstances because policy considerations negated prima facie duties; local authority permit being granted after commencement did not render contract or CNC invalid; appellant was in breach for failing to complete works and liable to liquidated damages under Clause 5 and s75 CA (Cubic Electronics burden allocation);…
10 Feb 2020

NG BOON ANN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

WA-42[ORS]-8-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42[ORS]-8-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the High Court found the sessions court was entitled to conclude the seized RM1,865,000 was obtained as a result of or in connection with corrupt conduct under the MACC Act; the investigating officers' affidavits and exhibits were admissible under s41A and not excluded as hearsay; the sessions court gave adequate reasons; therefore the forfeiture order under s41(1) was properly made and is affirmed.

Malaysia Case Law

Muhammad Azizul Hakim Bin Hasnan [Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM)]

1. ) SHAHFIQ BIN KHARIDAN 2. ) MUHAMAD NORLIZAM BIN ALI

CORSA TECH SDN. BHD. 1. YTB IMPRESSION SDN. BHD. & 2 LAGI

NG BOON ANN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR