Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Sentencing (death penalty)

  • 30 Aug 2022

    [ ] Wan Mohd Herdy Bin Wan Hamid

    Citation
    BA-45A-31-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-31-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Court accepted chemist analysis and intact chain of custody; found drugs in defendant's backpack alongside his personal items and driving licence, inferred physical control and knowledge from circumstances and flight behavior; statutory presumption of trafficking applied to methamphetamine >50g; defence account discredited as afterthought and materially inconsistent; prosecution proved all elements beyond reasonable doubt, warranting conviction and prescribed sentences.

  • 12 Jun 2022

    [ ] MAT ZAINUDIN BIN MANSOR

    Citation
    DA-45-1-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    DA-45-1-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the totality of direct observational evidence, conduct (attempted flight), exclusive access to the sealed package, and chemical analysis confirming 134.6g methamphetamine and 9.2g caffeine, the court found possession, knowledge and common intention proven beyond reasonable doubt and applied the statutory presumption of distribution under s37(da)(xvi), resulting in conviction on all counts and imposition of statutory sentences including death for trafficking.

  • 31 Mar 2022

    Francis Nwankwo Okechukwu [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

    Citation
    B-05(M)-631-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    B-05(M)-631-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court of Appeal held the trial judge did not err: the prosecution proved custody and control because the drugs were in open bags visible and emitting smell in the room where the appellant was alone, the presumption under s.37(d) DDA applied until rebutted, the defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt or provide material particulars/witnesses necessary to undermine the narrative, and the trial judge complied with s.182A CPC; therefore convictions and sentences were safe and affirmed.

  • 28 Feb 2022

    [ ] Muhammad Nabil Bin D'zulkefli

    Citation
    BA-45A-30-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-30-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the whole evidence the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had possession, knowledge and control of the cannabis found both in the car backpack and in his room; the 409.62g quantity attracted the statutory presumption of possession for trafficking under s.37(da)(vi) ADB and the accused failed to raise reasonable doubt or rebut the presumption; accordingly he was convicted under s.39B and s.6 ADB and sentenced as below.

  • 20 Aug 2021

    SER CHEE YEW PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

    Citation
    W-05(M)-171-04/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    W-05(M)-171-04/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Prosecution proved custody and control of six boxes containing 83,408 grams of methamphetamine; invocation of the statutory presumption under s.37(d) DDA shifted burden to appellant to rebut knowledge on balance of probabilities which he failed to do; receiving/importing such a large quantity falls within the definition of trafficking under s.2 DDA; omissions alleged (non-viewing of CCTV, non-explicit finding at end of defence) did not prejudice the defence and did not vitiate the conviction, therefore appeal must be dismissed and conviction and death sentence affirmed.

  • 16 Dec 2020

    PENDAKWARAYA LAW HENG MUN

    Citation
    WA-45A-12-04/2019 5; WA-45-20-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-45A-12-04/2019 5; WA-45-20-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution proved at the maximum evaluation stage that the seized substances (Ketamine 85.29g, MDMA 640.21g, Etizolam 2088.2g) were dangerous drugs, that the exhibits were found in the accused's room in close proximity to him and under his control, chain of custody and forensic analysis were reliable, statutory presumptions under s37(d) applied and the defence failed to rebut or raise reasonable doubt; accordingly accused convicted on the charged offences and sentenced as below.

  • 27 Jul 2020

    Alan Soh Heng Liang

    Citation
    B-05(M)-397-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    B-05(M)-397-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court found the conviction unsafe because the trial judge failed to consider the defence and relevant defence evidence (including evidence of another arrested person with similar packages), there were credible doubts about the appellant's knowledge of the drugs and gaps in the chain of custody, while the date error in the charge was curable under sections 156 and 422 CPC; therefore the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • 9 Jul 2019

    RAHBAR YADOLLAH FATHI

    Citation
    B-05(M)-412-09/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    M
    Case number
    B-05(M)-412-09/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court held the trial judge's questioning was permissible under s165 and did not usurp the prosecution; the chain of custody and identity of the 99 capsules were satisfactorily established by sentry officers' testimony and handing-over lists and the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking; therefore the conviction and death sentence were affirmed.