Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of expert report

Legal area

Court

25 Sept 2024

MOHD AZRIL BIN YAHYA

Citation

DA-82D-18-07/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-82D-18-07/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because (a) although chain of custody showed the sample belonged to the accused, the expert report did not establish that the detected amphetamine/methamphetamine were classified as 'dangerous drugs' under Parts III & IV of the First Schedule and (b) the statutory presumption under Section 37(k) could not be invoked because Section 31A requirements were not met—the accused was not an 'arrested person' when the urine sample was taken; consequently discharge at end of prosecution was appropriate.
24 Jan 2022

1. ) Makhtar Bin Mat 2. ) Hasbullah Bin Mat 3. ) Che Ghani Bin Mohamad Zariah Binti Muhamad

Citation

DA-22NCvC-6-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-6-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the fingerprint expert's court‑ordered comparison (P1) that the thumbprints on P2 and P3 were not those of the deceased but matched a different person; P2 and P3 are therefore forged, the transfers effected by them are void, indefeasibility under s340 is defeated, plaintiffs as beneficiaries have equitable interest and locus standi to seek declaratory reliefs, and an adverse inference under s114 was warranted for failure to call the material witness; consequential reliefs and costs were granted.
14 Oct 2020

Ahmad bin Shafie Izham bin Shafie

Citation

KA-11(B)NCC-2-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

B
Case number

KA-11(B)NCC-2-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Magistrate: the plaintiff established registered temporary title and encroachment through JUPEM-approved plan and surveyor report; Section 83 was inapplicable because the plaintiff's survey was for temporary title, not final title; the defendant failed to show a better title or rebut the survey evidence; Exhibit P8 was admissible despite technical non-compliance with Order 40A because the defendant produced no contrary expert evidence. Therefore the Magistrate's judgment is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

MOHD AZRIL BIN YAHYA

1. ) Makhtar Bin Mat 2. ) Hasbullah Bin Mat 3. ) Che Ghani Bin Mohamad Zariah Binti Muhamad

Ahmad bin Shafie Izham bin Shafie