THE OFFICIAL REPOSITORY OF
MALAYSIAN JUDGMENTS & RULINGS

[2018] MYCA 10Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. S-05(M)-225-06/2016 & S-05(LB)-179-05/2017  Date of Judgment: 08 January 2018

Criminal law – Offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs – Conviction – Appeal

Criminal law – Whether the accused was under arrest when he uttered the words amounting to an admission of knowledge about the impugned drugs – Whether a statutory caution was given to the accused – Whether the trial judge failed to consider any evidence which corroborated with the defence of the accused – Whether the conviction was safe

[2018] MYCA 9Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Rayuan Jenayah No. J-05-63-03/2015  Date of Judgment: 08 January 2018

Criminal law – Kidnapping for money – Charge under Section 3 of the Kidnapping Act 1961 – Reasonable doubt raised over prosecution’s case – Amended charge under section 5(1) of the Kidnapping Act – Guilty plea – Conviction – Sentence – Appeal by prosecution

Criminal law – Whether the trial court has erred when it decided that the failure to summon a prosecution witness was fatal to the prosecution's case – Whether the trial court erred in law and fact when it accepted the defence of the respondents and found them guilty of the amended charge

[2018] MYCA 8Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Rayuan Jenayah Nos. B-05(M)-297-07/2016 & B-05(SH)-299-08/2016  Date of Judgment: 05 January 2018

Criminal law – Murder – Attempt to Murder – Conviction – Death sentence – Appeal

Criminal law – Self Defence – Whether the trial court erred when it found the appellant’s defence to be a mere denial or an afterthought – Whether the trial court failed to sufficiently appreciate that the appellant’s evidence cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case

[2018] MYCA 7Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Rayuan Jenayah No. P-05(M)-350-12/2015  Date of Judgment: 04 January 2018

Criminal Law - Trafficking of dangerous drugs – Offense under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

Criminal Law – Duty of the trial judge under Section 182A(1) the Criminal Procedure Code

Criminal Law – Whether the trial judge’s failure to adequately appreciate the cautioned statement contrary to Section 182A(1) the Criminal Procedure Code – Whether such failure of the trial judge amounts to misdirection warranting appellate intervention

[2018] MYCA 6Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Criminal Appeal No. A-05(M)-212-08/2015  Date of Judgment: 04 January 2018

Criminal Law – Possession of drugs – What constitutes possession – Whether the appellant had the sole custody and control of the drugs

Criminal Law – Presumption of trafficking in drugs – Section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act

Criminal Law – Whether the trial judge was wrong in finding that the prosecution had proven a prima facie case that the appellant had the sole custody and control of the drugs – Whether the defence had raised a reasonable doubt against the prosecution’s case

[2018] MYCA 5Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Rayuan Jenayah No. W-05(M)-209-06/2016  Date of Judgment: 04 January 2018

Criminal Law – Procedure – Whether parties should be allowed to make oral or written submissions at the close of the prosecution’s case

Criminal Law – Criminal procedure – Whether it is mandatory for trial judge to hear submissions before giving his decision – Whether that issue to be solely decided in light of Section 181(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Constitutional Law – Fair Trial – Whether failure of the trial judge to hear submissions amounts to denial of fair trial – Whether such failure contravenes Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution

[2018] MYCA 4Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Criminal Appeal No. B-05(M)-379-10/2016  Date of Judgment: 04 January 2018

Criminal Law – Trafficking in dangerous drugs - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Mandatory death sentence – Appeal

Criminal law – Evidence – Whether the appellant had physical custody and control of the bag that contained the impugned drugs at the material time – Whether the luggage tags of the impugned bags were inadmissible on the ground of the hearsay rule – Whether the evidence on the DNA profile inadmissible as the person who extracted the blood specimen of the appellant was not called as a witness – Whether the evidence pertaining to the test-fitting of clothes on the appellant admissible as a caution under section 37A (now Section 37B) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was not administered before the test-fitting – Whether the evidence of the chemist inadmissible on the ground of hearsay evidence as the person who actually carried out the test was not called as a witness

Criminal law – Criminal procedure – Whether the written statement of the investigation officer inadmissible – Whether the written statement fulfills the requirement for a declaration under section 402B(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Whether the statutory presumption under section 37(d) of the of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was correctly invoked by the trial judge to hold that the appellant had possession of the impugned drugs – Whether the trial judge had adequately considered the Doctrine of willful blindness and the innocent carrier defence put up by the appellant

[2018] MYCA 3Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Civil Appeal Nos. A-03(IM)(NCC)-50-05/2016 & A-03(IM)(NCC)-51-05/2016  Date of Judgment: 04 January 2018

Bankruptcy – Whether bankruptcy notice should be set aside – Whether bankruptcy notice was premised on a final judgment – Whether the amount due to the judgment creditors had been clarified or quantified

Bankruptcy – Law on the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice – Whether the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice vide the affidavit filed by the judgment debtors was in compliance with the Bankruptcy Act 1967 and the Bankruptcy Rules 1969

[2018] MYCA 2Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Rayuan Jenayah Nos. K-05-133-05/2015 & K-05-134-05/2015  Date of Judgment: 04 January 2018

Criminal law – Drug trafficking – Offence under section 39B (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 34 of the Penal Code

Criminal law – Evidence – Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving drug trafficking beyond reasonable doubt on both appellants – Whether Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 applies – Whether mutual intent was proven

[2018] MYCA 1Court of Appeal

Suit Number: Rayuan Jenayah No. K-05(M)-17-01/2016  Date of Judgment: 03 January 2018

Criminal Law – Murder – Defence of Grave and sudden provocation

Criminal Law – Whether both elements, grave and sudden were present – Whether Exemption 1 to Section 300 of the Penal Code applies – Whether the trial judge failed to appreciate the facts that showed grave and sudden provocation

GET J-ALERTS

Search Judgments

Notice: The Promoters of Malaysian Judgments acknowledge the permission granted by the relevant official/ original source for the reproduction of the above/ attached materials. You shall not reproduce the above/ attached materials in whole or in part without the prior written consent of the Promoters and/or the original/ official source. Neither the Promoters nor the official/ original source will be liable for any loss, injury, claim, liability, or damage caused directly, indirectly or incidentally to errors in or omissions from the above/ attached materials. The Promoters and the official/ original source also disclaim and exclude all liabilities in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of the above/attached materials. The access to, and the use of, Malaysian Judgments and contents herein are subject to the Terms of Use.