Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joint trial

Legal area

Court

18 Oct 2024

1. ) MUHAMMAD AL NIJAM BIN MD YUSOF 2. ) MUHAMMAD NOOR AZROY BIN MD SHARIF 3. ) MUHAMMAD ZAHIR BIN MD YUSOF

Citation

MC-83-162-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-83-162-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case for offences under s504 and s332 because (a) the words complained of were within protected expression and did not demonstrate intent to provoke a breach of peace, (b) the investigating officer's dual role created reasonable suspicion of bias undermining the investigation into s504, and (c) identification evidence was inconsistent and injuries were minor, leaving reasonable doubt as to which accused caused the harm; accordingly all accused were acquitted and discharged at the end of the prosecution's case.
18 Oct 2024

MUHAMMAD ROZAIMI BIN HASIM

Citation

MC-83-161-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-83-161-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on both counts: for s.504 there was no evidence the accused's words objectively amounted to an intentional insult likely to provoke breach of the peace and the statement fell within protected expression; for s.332 the identification evidence was unreliable, medical injuries were minor and not clearly attributable to the accused, and there was reasonable apprehension of bias in investigation; accordingly all accused were acquitted and discharged at the end of the prosecution's case.
17 Jan 2023

VINOAD A/L SADASIVAM

Citation

BA-42K-6-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42K-6-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the convictions because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st appellant dishonestly induced the victim to transfer funds by exploiting trust and blank forms, and the 2nd appellant received, concealed and moved the proceeds in his account (s424) and thereby received proceeds of unlawful activity under AMLA; the amended wording did not vitiate s424 liability; evidentiary gaps (CCTV, non‑called recipients) were immaterial; sentences for the 2nd appellant were increased for aggravating factors.
17 Jan 2023

MANIMALA A/P MUNIANDY

Citation

BA-42K-5-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42K-5-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the totality of evidence the High Court found the 1st appellant guilty of cheating under s420 because the victim was induced by trust to sign blank forms and transfer funds; the 2nd appellant knowingly received and concealed the proceeds in his account and committed offences under s424 and AMLA s4(1)(b); exhibit D21 did not rebut victim's belief and non‑production of CCTV was immaterial; convictions were therefore upheld and the court increased custodial terms for the 2nd appellant for aggravating factors.
13 Apr 2022

Vijayakumaran A/l Manogar [ ]

Citation

BA-42S-23-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42S-23-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the trial judge erred in doubting identity of the seized parang; identification by arresting officer (SP4) and confirmation by store officer (SP6) together with exhibit markings sufficiently linked the weapons to the seizure and to the accused. Procedural omissions and lack of formal paperwork were irregularities curable under s.422 CPC and did not occasion failure of justice. Joint trial without formal written order did not vitiate the trial because the offences formed the same transaction and the accused were not prejudiced. Trial court's adverse credibility findings against appe…
13 Apr 2022

Tarumacanan A/l Teagarajan [ ]

Citation

BA-42S-22-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42S-22-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appellate court held that the Sessions Court erred in discharging the accused on the s.6(1) Akta 357 counts because identification and chain of custody evidence (SP4 and SP6, markings and photographs) were sufficient; that the amendment/readings of the charge and the absence of a formal joint-trial order were irregularities curable under s.422 CPC and did not occasion a failure of justice; that the Sessions Court properly assessed credibility of witnesses and rejection of the defence was reasonable; accordingly the acquittal on the weapon charges was set aside and appellants were called t…
9 Jun 2021

PENDAKWARAYA TRANSCOASTAL SDN BHD

Citation

BL-44-6-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-44-6-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Extension of time under Section 310 CrPC was granted because the applicant reasonably relied on the magistrate's order and court notation that appeared to include both case numbers; the filing error was attributable to the court's recordation and did not produce unjustifiable prejudice that would bar relief, therefore leave to file an appeal out of time for BL-87-4490-09/2017 is warranted.
12 Feb 2020

Tengku Adnan Bin Tengku Mansor

Citation

W-05-407-09/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-05-407-09/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellate court allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial before another judge because objectively there was a real danger of bias: the trial judge had accepted the co-accused's guilty plea and considered the facts and exhibits which could not be treated as effaced from his mind, creating a real possibility of unfair regard against the appellant despite the judge's declaration of impartiality.