Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Insanity defence

Legal area

Court

9 Feb 2026

SHAHREZAL BIN SHUHAIMI

Citation

RA-45B-1-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-45B-1-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the unchallenged and cogent expert evidence that the accused suffers from a permanent moderate intellectual disability causing severe cognitive deficits and impaired judgment, the court found on the balance of probabilities that the accused was medically insane and, prima facie, legally insane at the time of the killing (unable to know the wrongfulness of his act). Consequently the accused was acquitted under s84 Penal Code and ordered detained under ss347 and 348 Criminal Procedure Code.
19 Sept 2025

Ahmad Choirul Mustaqim

Citation

JA-45B-12-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-45B-12-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court preferred the detailed retrospective expert opinion (Dr Ian) over the earlier, less detailed report (Dr Yeoh), found the accused suffered schizophrenia and at the time of the offence was incapable of appreciating the nature or wrongness of his actions under s.84 Penal Code on the balance of probabilities, therefore the accused was acquitted and, pursuant to s.348(1) CPC, ordered to be detained in a psychiatric facility.
21 Apr 2025

MUHAMMAD AZWAN BIN ZULKARNAI [ ]

Citation

D-05(SH)-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

D-05(SH)-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge correctly rejected the insanity defence: psychiatric report showed substance‑induced psychosis had resolved and affirmed mental capacity at the material time; the appellant's deliberate actions (entry, seizure of firearm, loading and aiming, two shots causing fatal injuries, flight and concealment) and forensic evidence demonstrated cognitive capacity and intent. The appellant failed to satisfy the burden under s105 EA on a balance of probabilities and no adverse inference under s114(g) EA arose.
4 Oct 2024

[ ] MOHD ROZANI BIN YAHAYA

Citation

05(LB)-117-11/2023(D) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

LB
Case number

05(LB)-117-11/2023(D) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held the trial judge and Court of Appeal erred in acquitting the accused at the end of the prosecution case without calling the defence because the accused had not discharged the burden to prove legal insanity under section 84 or intoxication-induced insanity under section 85(2)(b); medical evidence alone was insufficient to establish legal insanity and the proper procedure is to continue the trial and call the accused to enter his defence; accordingly the appellate courts' acquittals were set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for continuation.
22 Jul 2024

Amir Hafiz bin Abdul Hadi

Citation

CA-62JSK-13-05/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-62JSK-13-05/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court accepted that the accused committed the physical acts alleged but on balance of probabilities the accused proved he was of unsound mind (schizophrenia) and at the time was incapable of knowing the nature or wrongfulness of his acts; accordingly acquittal under section 347 of the Criminal Procedure Code was ordered and detention under section 348 was directed pending the Ruler's order, which resulted in confinement at Hospital Permai under s348(2).
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.
20 Nov 2023

Ja'afar Bin Halid [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

P-05(SH)-452-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

P-05(SH)-452-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the balance of probabilities the Court of Appeal found appellant was legally insane at the time of the shootings due to recurrent stimulant-induced psychosis supported by medical and witness evidence; the trial judge misappreciated and excluded material evidence and erred in finding intent and focused attack, therefore convictions and sentences were quashed and appellant was discharged under section 347 CPC and ordered to be detained in a psychiatric hospital under section 348 CPC.
20 Nov 2023

Ja'afar Bin Halid [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

P-05(SH)-451-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

P-05(SH)-451-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the appellant was legally insane (s84 Penal Code) at the time of the shootings; accordingly convictions and sentences were set aside, appellant discharged under s347 Criminal Procedure Code and ordered to be detained and reported to the Yang di‑Pertuan Agong under s348 Criminal Procedure Code.
6 Nov 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] LIM POO TECK

Citation

W-05(LB)-519-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

W-05(LB)-519-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in acquitting the Respondent at the close of the prosecution case despite finding the act constituting murder proved because medical opinion alone at that stage cannot supplant the requirement to call the accused to enter his defence and prove legal insanity; the defence must be called and the court must evaluate all evidence including defence evidence before determining legal insanity, therefore the acquittal was set aside and the case remitted to the High Court for continuation and for the Respondent to enter his defence.
16 Oct 2023

SHARIL BIN MOHD SARIF

Citation

WA-62CY-9-05/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-62CY-9-05/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because the psychiatric evidence established that at the time of the alleged postings the accused was legally unsound of mind (schizophrenia), incapable of knowing the nature and wrongness of his acts and therefore lacked the requisite intent under s.233(1)(a); accordingly the accused was not called to answer and was discharged and acquitted.