Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strict liability offences

Legal area

Court

24 Sept 2025

Bunga Melur Alisya binti Ahmad

Citation

WA-42H-3-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42H-3-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The magistrate's imposition of a bond of good behaviour was within lawful discretionary limits given the plea of guilt, mitigation, and nature of harm; the sentence was not grossly inadequate or legally erroneous, and therefore appellate interference was unwarranted except to vary the bond duration to ten years to provide adequate deterrence and monitoring time.
6 Aug 2023

MICHAEL LIEW

Citation

TA-83-278-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-83-278-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was subject to a valid police supervision order and breached the curfew by being outside his registered residence between 8.00 pm and 6.00 am; the offence is one of strict liability so self‑induced intoxication is not a defence under s85 Penal Code and the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction under Section 15(2)(f) APJ 1959 was therefore justified and the appropriate sentence was two years' imprisonment commencing from date of conviction.
9 Jan 2020

Koh Chin Tuan

Citation

JA-41H-11-10/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-41H-11-10/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed because prosecution failed to prove appellant's possession, custody or control of the psychotropic items recovered at premise No.29A (premises were accessible to others and appellant did not have exclusive control), and there was a break in the chain of evidence for key exhibits; procedural complaints (s51A, s173, s18) did not render trial void and the offences are strict liability, but evidential failures required quashing of the convictions and refunding of fines.
12 Jul 2019

PENDAKWARAYA Jabatan Kastam diRaja Malaysia Gemilang Auto Parts Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

85-131-12/2017 & 85-5-01/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

85-131-12/2017 & 85-5-01/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court held that for s.135(1)(g) prosecution failed to prove fraudulent intent beyond reasonable doubt because defence evidence that declarations were made in reliance on supplier documents and agent lacked access to sealed container created reasonable doubt as to mens rea, resulting in acquittal; however, for s.133(1)(a) the false written declaration was established and that offence is one of strict liability, so the company was convicted, fined RM10,000 and seized goods ordered forfeited.

Malaysia Case Law

Bunga Melur Alisya binti Ahmad

MICHAEL LIEW

Koh Chin Tuan

PENDAKWARAYA Jabatan Kastam diRaja Malaysia Gemilang Auto Parts Sdn. Bhd.