Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Double presumptions

  • 20 Oct 2021

    IMRAN BIN ZAKARIA

    Citation
    P-05(M)-558-11/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    P-05(M)-558-11/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court of Appeal held that the learned Judicial Commissioner committed material legal errors by referring to and invoking s.37(d) and s.37(da) without electing or making a clear finding whether the case proceeded on actual or presumed trafficking and by failing to determine whether any invoked presumptions were rebutted on the balance of probabilities; those errors prejudiced the accused and rendered the conviction unsafe, warranting setting aside the conviction and sentence and ordering acquittal.

  • 15 Jun 2020

    1. YUGARAJAN A/L LETCHIMANASAMY 2. PUSHPANATHAN A/L RAJAN

    Citation
    K-05(M)-235-04/2018 & K-05(M)-237-04/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    K-05(M)-235-04/2018 & K-05(M)-237-04/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The appeal is allowed because the trial judge improperly relied on concurrent presumptions of possession and trafficking in breach of Federal Court authority (Alma Nudo), s.37A cannot validate double presumptions, the prosecution's failure to make available the offered agent provocateur witness prejudiced the defence and invited adverse inference, and the trial court failed to make any finding on common intention; these defects render convictions and death sentences unsafe and require setting aside and acquittal.

  • 29 Jul 2019

    Teo Kian Chun Tan Hark Liang Public Prosecutor

    Citation
    J-05(M)-281-05/2018 , J-05(M)-282-05/2018 , J-05(M)-286-05/2018 , J-05(M)-287-05/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    J-05(M)-281-05/2018 , J-05(M)-282-05/2018 , J-05(M)-286-05/2018 , J-05(M)-287-05/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Use of concurrent statutory presumptions (double presumptions) by the trial judge rendered the convictions unsafe; additionally material evidential omission (relevant portion of CCTV) prejudiced the defence and there was insufficient evidence to prove trafficking beyond the presumptions, therefore convictions and sentences could not be sustained and appellants must be acquitted and discharged.