Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Turnbull guidelines

  • 4 Dec 2025

    MUHAMMAD HANIF BIN ABDULLAH

    Citation
    RA-83-651-09/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    RA-83-651-09/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court found the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s.448 because identification of the accused by the sole eyewitness was unreliable (fleeting glimpse, poor lighting, reliance on skin colour/height), there was no credible supporting forensic or corroborative evidence, and the police investigation was incomplete leaving multiple reasonable inferences in favour of the accused; accordingly the accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to answer.

  • 26 Jun 2025

    SATIA A/L BALU

    Citation
    WA-42S-12-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-42S-12-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction because cumulative defects (an irregular and prejudicial identification parade, material inconsistencies in the victim's testimony including intoxication, non‑production of a significant portion of CCTV footage permitting an adverse inference, and absence of the appellant's DNA on the victim) together raised a reasonable doubt as to guilt such that the conviction was unsafe; appellant acquitted and discharged.

  • 26 Jun 2025

    SATIA A/L BALU

    Citation
    WA-42H-12-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-42H-12-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The conviction was unsafe because the identification parade was irregular and suggestive, the victim's testimony contained material inconsistencies and was affected by intoxication, crucial CCTV footage was not produced (warranting an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950), and forensic DNA did not link the appellant to the victim; the trial judge failed to properly evaluate these matters and the defence, such that a reasonable doubt existed. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged; prosecution's appeal ag…

  • 15 Oct 2024

    SALINDER SINGH A/L HERNEK SINGH

    Citation
    JA-62RS-41-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    JA-62RS-41-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The prosecution failed to prove identity and the attempt to cause hurt beyond a prima facie threshold: PW1's identification of a masked robber based only on eye and nose was unreliable and uncorroborated, CCTV did not support the weapon claim, section 27 was inapplicable because no distinct information by the accused led to discovery, and the totality of evidence did not establish a prima facie case; therefore the accused was acquitted and discharged.

  • 15 Aug 2023

    [ ] LIEW WIN THAI

    Citation
    CB-42H-14-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    CB-42H-14-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Conviction unsafe and therefore quashed because the trial judge improperly placed decisive reliance on identification evidence from a kawad cam and in-court ID despite material inconsistencies between witnesses, inadequate scrutiny of how the identification was made, and absence of corroborating physical exhibits and laboratory evidence; the trial judge also failed properly to evaluate defence evidence, resulting in an unsafe verdict.

  • 15 Aug 2023

    LIEW WIN THAI [ ]

    Citation
    CB-42S-5-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    CB-42S-5-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Appeal allowed and conviction and sentence set aside because reliance on kawad cam and in‑court identification by SP6 was unsafe given material contradictions between eyewitnesses, lack of corroborative physical exhibits (plastic bottles and lab report) and inadequate evaluation of defence evidence by the trial judge; the totality of evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • 7 Jul 2023

    [Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) QISTINA BATRISYIA BINTI MOHD SALLEH 2. ) BIBI SHAKIRA BINTI SAMSUDDIN

    Citation
    WA-62-76-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    WA-62-76-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Prosecution proved cause and effect of fire and damage under Section 436 but failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the perpetrators; CCTV was inconclusive and owner identification was unreliable and not corroborated; therefore no prima facie case existed and accused were discharged without being called to answer.

  • 28 Oct 2022

    [ ] GOPAL NAIR A/L KRISHNAN

    Citation
    BA-45-22-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45-22-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court found the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused on a prima facie standard because identification evidence was unreliable or procedurally defective (including non-compliance with Turnbull guidelines and ID parade safeguards, twin-identification ambiguity, and labelling/signature errors), medical evidence did not corroborate alleged slashing, and alibi/denial evidence further undermined linkage; accordingly no prima facie case existed and all accused were acquitted and discharged.

  • 28 Oct 2022

    [ ] GOPAL NAIR A/L KRISHNAN

    Citation
    BA-45B-19-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45B-19-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court acquitted and discharged all three accused because the prosecution failed to prove the identity of each accused on a prima facie standard: key witnesses gave inconsistent and unreliable accounts; identification evidence failed Turnbull scrutiny; ID parade reports were flawed (labelling errors, absence of signatures, non‑attendance of witnesses to prove parade identifications) and special problems arose with identical twins making identification unsafe; medical evidence did not support the alleged slashing injuries. Consequently there was insufficient evidence to call the accused to…

  • 28 Oct 2022

    [ ] Vignes A/l Valamarajah

    Citation
    BA-45B-20-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45B-20-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because the identity of each accused was not satisfactorily proven: the principal eyewitness denied the first accused was the person at the scene, the second accused was not identified according to Turnbull standards and later died in custody, and the third accused’s identification was undermined by identical twin ambiguity and procedurally defective ID parades; these defects, together with inconsistent witness accounts and lack of corroborative forensic or medical evidence, mandated acquittal.