Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Trial in absence

  • 15 Nov 2024

    [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHAMAD KAMAL BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

    Citation
    CB-83D-420-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    CB-83D-420-03/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    After maximum evaluation the court found prosecution evidence sufficient to prove possession (control and knowledge) and continuity of chain; a prima facie case was established, the defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt, and conviction on both amended charges under s.12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was justified; sentencing imposed 15 months and 13 months imprisonment to run concurrently from date of re-arrest; trial properly continued in accused's absence under s.425A without drawing adverse inference because accused had already testified.

  • 4 Oct 2023

    LESLIE TAN CHIN SIANG FUN N CHEER SDN. BHD.

    Citation
    BL-12BNCvC-4-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BL-12BNCvC-4-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court found the Sessions Court judge erred in dismissing the counterclaim for abuse of process because the Respondent failed to adduce evidence or challenge the Appellant's uncontradicted testimony, and the trial judge failed to draw the appropriate adverse inference; appeal allowed, dismissal set aside, matter remitted to Sessions Court for assessment of damages and costs awarded to Appellant.

  • 3 Feb 2021

    HEMANATHAN A/L MOORTHY

    Citation
    BA-42H-61-09/2019 & BA-42H-62-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-42H-61-09/2019 & BA-42H-62-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Appellant waived right to mitigation by absconding; trial and sentencing in his absence complied with s425A CPC; the Sessions Court properly exercised sentencing discretion considering gravity, premeditation, violence and public interest; consecutive sentences were appropriate because the charges were distinct offences; the Sessions Court correctly directed commencement of sentence from the date of re-arrest under ss282(d) and 292 CPC; therefore there was no legal error justifying interference and the appeal is dismissed.