21 Nov 2025
The High Court refused the stay because the applicant failed to demonstrate special or exceptional circumstances: no medical evidence substantiating the claimed critical depression was produced and the grounds of appeal did not raise complex or novel legal issues but typical legal questions under section 376; accordingly the discretionary stay was not justified.
10 Nov 2025
Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: the victim could not identify individual perpetrators, there was no evidence of a specific threat causing fear to compel surrender of RM1000, material contradictions existed among witnesses (including accomplices) and common intention under s.34 was not proven; therefore accused should be discharged and acquitted at close of prosecution case.
11 Jun 2025
The Magistrate's sentencing exercise properly balanced mitigating factors including early guilty pleas and the accuseds' youth against aggravating factors of violence and pecuniary loss, and was within the lawful discretionary range; therefore the prosecution's appeal against the sentences is dismissed and the original fines/default imprisonment terms are upheld.
5 May 2025
The High Court upheld the magistrate's discharge of the accused because the prosecution failed to prove the two essential elements of Section 384 (intimidation causing fear of injury and fraudulent inducement to deliver property), the sole eyewitness (complainant) gave inconsistent and unreliable evidence, and the prosecution failed to produce and have witnesses identify the seized cash (amount seized inconsistent with alleged RM300), thereby failing to establish a prima facie case to call the accused to defend themselves.
19 Dec 2024
Prosecution failed to prove the first essential element of extortion — that the accused intentionally put the named complainant in fear — because the complainant and the Chinese passenger were not called, the viral video was not admitted or formally translated, eyewitnesses at scene did not observe the accused demanding or receiving money and one eyewitness could not identify the accused; investigatory omissions prejudiced the defence; therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused must be acquitted.
14 Nov 2024
The High Court dismissed the appeals because the earlier High Court order had established a prima facie case and the appellants' defence failed to create reasonable doubt; the appellate court must defer to trial findings on credibility and factual matters and there was no legal error or manifest unsafety in the convictions or in the sentences, which were not manifestly excessive.
14 Nov 2024
Defence evidence failed to raise reasonable doubt against the prima facie case previously found on appeal; there was no misdirection by the trial judge and credibility findings were supported by evidence and demeanor; thus convictions and sentences were affirmed.
14 Nov 2024
The appellate court upheld the convictions and sentences because a prior High Court judge had already found a prima facie case; the appellants' defence evidence failed to raise reasonable doubt on those findings, the trial judge's credibility assessments were entitled to deference, no misdirection was shown, and the sentences were not manifestly excessive given the seriousness and breach of public trust by police officers.
14 Dec 2023
Appellant's early guilty plea and lack of antecedents attracted mitigation but were outweighed by the gravity of extortion against his mother, the deliberateness of the conduct and public interest in deterrence; therefore the sentence of one year imprisonment from arrest and a RM3000 fine (or 8 months default) is appropriate and is affirmed.
3 Sept 2021
Given the admitted facts, conviction on the plea was appropriate; the aggravated manner of the love‑scam (recording and use of obscene material to extort) and the prevalence of online fraud justified a custodial sentence despite first‑offender status and guilty plea; the court imposed one month imprisonment from date of arrest and RM8000 fine, and dismissed the stay application because no special circumstances were shown and risk of absconding existed for a foreign national under s.311.