Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Reckless driving

  • 17 Oct 2025

    MUHAMMAD SYAIFULLAH BIN ZAKARIA

    Citation
    JI-86POL-4413-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    JI-86POL-4413-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution failed to prove the essential element of driving without due care and attention under s43(1) because material gaps and inconsistencies (centre‑line scratch marks on both directions, bone fragments on accused's lane, credible evidence of high speed by motorcycle and Alza following motorlori) left reasonable doubt; accordingly no prima facie case was established and accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to enter his defence.

  • 13 Jun 2024

    ROFIZLAN BIN YUNUS

    Citation
    AP-82-3-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    AP-82-3-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The prosecution failed to prove the subjective element of recklessness under s41(1) beyond reasonable doubt given evidence that the accused stopped before turning, possible visibility/intervening factors, and contributory factors from the deceased's bicycle; however the accused did not exercise due care and attention (failure to signal and turn while a cyclist was on his left) and therefore is properly convicted under s43(1) RTA 1987; procedural typographical errors did not render the trial unlawful.

  • 14 May 2023

    [TIMBALAN ] Ahmad Sufi Bin Ismail

    Citation
    83-91-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    83-91-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution failed to prove the fault/khilaf element required for conviction under s41(1) because credible evidence (notably eyewitness SP12) established accidental loss of control reacting to a suddenly braking vehicle ahead and adverse wet conditions; therefore no prima facie case for s41(1). However the facts established a prima facie case of careless driving under s43(1), warranting amendment of the charge, a guilty plea to s43(1) and conviction with sentence reflected accordingly.

  • 12 May 2022

    Aziz Satar Bin Mat Dali [ ]

    Citation
    AB-41S-8-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    AB-41S-8-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant drove in a manner meeting the legal threshold for s.41(1) reckless or dangerous driving; the learned Magistrate misapplied the burden by not properly evaluating defence and drawing inferences favourable to accused; defence raised reasonable doubt and evidence supported conviction only for driving without due care under s.43(1), therefore conviction substituted to s.43(1) and appropriate sentence was a fine of RM10,000 (default 1 year imprisonment).

  • 25 Mar 2022

    MOHAN RAO A/L NATCHANA

    Citation
    WA-83-3660-04/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    WA-83-3660-04/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court found that the prosecution proved identity of the driver, a blood alcohol concentration of 102mg/100ml exceeding the legal limit and that the accused's intoxicated driving at excessive speed amounted to recklessness causing death and grievous injury; the accused's account failed to raise a reasonable doubt; accordingly convicted under section 44(1)(b) RTA and sentenced taking into account deterrence, public interest and mitigation.

  • 16 Mar 2022

    MUHAMMAD HAZIQ BIN RAMLI

    Citation
    BH-83-30-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    BH-83-30-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The magistrate accepted the probation officer's recommendation and, applying s.293 CPC and sentencing principles favoring rehabilitation for youthful first offenders, sentenced the accused to a community service order of 120 hours to be completed within 12 months with a bond of RM5000 with one surety and ancillary conditions (monthly police reporting and night‑time movement restriction); the sentence was imposed as proportionate to the offence and consistent with public interest and rehabilitative goals.

  • 16 Dec 2021

    YEE KIN SUM

    Citation
    WA–41S–44–10/2020 & WA–41H–55–10/2020 (didengar bersama) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    didengar bersama
    Case number
    WA–41S–44–10/2020 & WA–41H–55–10/2020 (didengar bersama) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court affirmed the Magistrate: eyewitness testimony and video showed the accused made a U-turn and drove against traffic, the defence explanation of mechanical failure was implausible given repair documentation and testimony, and therefore the prosecution proved recklessness under s41(1) RTA 1987 beyond reasonable doubt; the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was upheld.