Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Actus reus

  • 24 Mar 2025

    SHAIRUL FIKIN BIN MOHD JAIB

    Citation
    MC-82D-8-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    MC-82D-8-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The accused was convicted because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had custody and exclusive control of the pot containing 42 packages of Mitragynine (chemist report 33.60 litres), he led police to its discovery thereby demonstrating knowledge, the statutory presumption under section 30(4) Poisons Act was properly invoked and not rebutted, and the conduct of pointing was admissible under sections 27 and 8 of the Evidence Act; accordingly guilty under section 30(3) Poisons Act 1952 and sentenced to a fine of RM6,000 or 12 months' imprisonment in default.

  • 27 Jun 2024

    SHARIL BIN MOHD SARIF

    Citation
    WA-42CY-5-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-42CY-5-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court affirmed the sessions court's acquittal because, on full appraisal of the prosecution evidence including the psychiatric report P4B and the accused's unchallenged explanation, the prosecution failed to prove the requisite mens rea (intent to injure) making out a prima facie case under s233(1)(a) Act 588; the sessions court properly ordered observation, proceeded to trial after certification of fitness to plead, evaluated medical and legal insanity principles, and correctly found no appealable error of fact or law.

  • 27 Mar 2024

    SHAMSUL BAHRI BIN MUSA [TIMBALAN ]

    Citation
    WA-42S-7-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-42S-7-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    SCJ2 failed to perform the mandatory maximum evaluation of the entire evidence by not juxtaposing the defence case with the prosecution's case; the charges were defective for CBT because they omitted the mode of commission, entrustment particulars and mens rea; prosecution thus failed to prove entrustment and dishonest intention beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction was unsafe and must be set aside, resulting in acquittal and discharge.

  • 9 Nov 2021

    [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] GUY BOON LEANG

    Citation
    W-09(H)-122-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    H
    Case number
    W-09(H)-122-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Amendment ordered by Court of Appeal was not read to accused when called to plead, causing real prejudice to his right to know the charge and to mount a proper defence; prosecution failed to prove essential elements (mens rea and use of glass as weapon) beyond reasonable doubt; omission was not a curable technical error under s422 KTJ — conviction unsafe and must be set aside.

  • 23 Mar 2021

    PENDAKWARAYA TONY OMORODION OGBOIN (NO. PASSPORT: A05433714)

    Citation
    45A-46-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    45A-46-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution failed to prove exclusive possession and requisite knowledge of the drugs because the crates were consigned to another name, phone and tenancy leads were not thoroughly investigated, physical handling did not establish animus possidendi and gaps in investigation left reasonable doubt; therefore no prima facie case existed and accused must be acquitted.