Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Toxicology evidence

Legal area

Court

16 Oct 2025

MOHD SHAMIM BIN HASHIM

Citation

KE-82-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KE-82-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to prove element three (driving without due care/entering opposite lane) on a prima facie standard because the case depended on circumstantial evidence that did not exclude reasonable alternative explanations (deceased impairment, lack of eyewitness/CCTV, absence of forensic reconstruction and braking evidence); therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged under section 180(3) Criminal Procedure Code.
12 Aug 2024

LAI KIM ON

Citation

MC-83-238-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-83-238-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove dangerously because the investigation was incomplete, objective evidence (sketch, brake/drag marks, photographs, Puspakom damage) supported the accused's version, toxicology specimens were not tested leaving doubt about the deceased's impairment, and an intervening hospital infection meant causation of death was not firmly linked to the alleged dangerous driving; therefore no prima facie case and accused must be acquitted at the end of prosecution's case.
29 May 2024

1. ) HAZELIN NOR BINTI ZAINAL ABIDIN ( Menuntut sebagai Isteri dan Anak-Anak Yang Sah serta Orang Tanggungan Simati, MUHAMAD HAZRI BIN ASLIYAS ) 2. ) XXXX 1. ) HASANUDDIN BIN RENTA 2. ) E BROTHERS TRADING SDN BHD

Citation

NA-12BNCvC-29-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-12BNCvC-29-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court's apportionment of negligence at 80% against the defendants and 20% against the deceased because the first respondent's guilty plea, investigation evidence (including absence of U-turn signage and the U-turn manoeuvre), toxicology results showing alcohol in the deceased's blood, and factual findings justified that allocation; appellate interference was unwarranted under settled principles.
2 Apr 2023

POOVANESWARI A/P VADIVAIL MCIS INSURANCE BERHAD

Citation

JB-12BNCvC-7-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-12BNCvC-7-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Trial judge misdirected by placing burden of proof of the exclusion on the plaintiff; plaintiff proved death arose from road traffic accident and coverage under the rider on balance of probabilities; insurer relied solely on a chemical report but failed to prove that alcohol intoxication caused the injuries and death or to eliminate reasonable doubt (including possible bacterial alcohol production); insurer therefore failed to discharge its burden to establish exclusion 6.4.5 and appeal is allowed.
23 Feb 2023

THARMABALAN A/L RAMASAMY

Citation

WA-83-6827-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-83-6827-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court held prosecution proved a prima facie case and, on full consideration of prosecution and defence evidence, found accused's explanations to be unreliable; toxicology, scene evidence and post-mortem established that accused drove under influence, lost control and caused the victim's death; defence failed to raise reasonable doubt — accused convicted under s.44(1)(a) Road Transport Act 1987 and sentenced.
21 May 2021

1. ) SAAD BIN IBRAHIM 2. ) KAPENU (PENANG-KL) TRANSPORT SIVAM A/L PONNIAH

Citation

BL-12B-2-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12B-2-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court found the Sessions Court judge erred in finding 50:50 liability because the evidence favored the defendants' version, the plaintiff failed to prove the collision and damage as pleaded, and the plaintiff's conduct (including positive drug test) made his version improbable; accordingly liability was placed 100% on the plaintiff and the appeal was allowed.
7 Feb 2020

PENDAKWARAYA ROMZI BIN MAMAT

Citation

BA-82D-03-10/2017 & BA-82D-01-01/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BA-82D-03-10/2017 & BA-82D-01-01/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to prove possession (custody, control and knowledge) because evidence showed other occupants and use of the car by others making exclusive control unproven; there were material contradictions about where the urine sample was taken producing a break in the chain of custody; consequently the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case on either the s.6 or s.15(1)(a) charges and the accused must be acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.

Malaysia Case Law

MOHD SHAMIM BIN HASHIM

LAI KIM ON

1. ) HAZELIN NOR BINTI ZAINAL ABIDIN ( Menuntut sebagai Isteri dan Anak-Anak Yang Sah serta Orang Tanggungan Simati, MUHAMAD HAZRI BIN ASLIYAS ) 2. ) XXXX 1. ) HASANUDDIN BIN RENTA 2. ) E BROTHERS TRADING SDN BHD

POOVANESWARI A/P VADIVAIL MCIS INSURANCE BERHAD

THARMABALAN A/L RAMASAMY

1. ) SAAD BIN IBRAHIM 2. ) KAPENU (PENANG-KL) TRANSPORT SIVAM A/L PONNIAH

PENDAKWARAYA ROMZI BIN MAMAT