Criminal Appeal
12 cases · March 2023 to November 2025
Case Volume by Year
1 23
11 25
2023–2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Against conviction — Decision from the Sessions Court — Principles of appellate intervention — Charge under s. 304 (a) PC — Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case — Whether the sole eyewitness is credible — Whether there exists doubt regarding how the victim suffered the injury — Shoddy investigations — Failure to prepare a search list for the weapons — Failure to investigate if the victim was involved in a road accident instead — Non-existence of the accused or the victim’s DNAA on the weapons weakens the prosecution’s case — Failure to investigate two other persons who also hit the victim — Failure to establish ownership of the two motorcars — Prosecution’s case is not weaken in light of the direct evidence from sole eyewitness on the incident — Whether Court failed to consider the defence — Prosecution’s appeal — Against decision of the Court in finding the accused guilty of a lesser charge under s 304 (b) PC — Whether Court erred in finding the accused guilty of a lesser charge under s 304 (b) PC upon calling the accused to enter defence on the original charge under s 304 (a) — Appeal by the accused and prosecution against sentence — Whether sentence is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate. 3 whether the failure of the trial court to explain to the Appellant that he has the right to have an advocate to defend his case would render the Appellant’s plea of guilty invalid — whether the trial court has the responsibility to explain to an accused on his right to have an advocate to defend him before his plea is admitted. 3 appeal against the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court Judge 2 s 376(1) Penal Code -Complainant is an Indonesian, fled from her employer's house — Appellant is a police officer, brought the complainant to a hotel and had sexual intercourse with her 1 Decision from the Magistrate’s Court — Charge under s. 135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967 — For loading prohibited goods onto a motorcar — Accused discharged and acquitted end of prosecution’s case — Prosecution appealed to the High Court — High Court ordered accused to enter his defence — Burden to rebut the statutory presumption — Under s. 135 (2) Customs Act 1967 on the accused — On a balance of probabilities — Accused’s defence — He has no knowledge of the prohibited goods — He was asked by his employer to drive the employer’s motorcar from Kulai to Batu Pahat — No prohibited goods in the motorcar along the journey — Employer asked the accused to park the motorcar park behind a restaurant — And not to lock the motorcar and leave the keys inside — Accused heard employer taking over the phone asking his workers to load goods into the motorcar — Accused's defence corroborated by friend’s evidence — Who followed him in the motorcar and was at the restaurant — Customs aware motorcar does not belong to the accused and belongs to one Chok Yuk Fui — Failure by Customs to locate and investigate the owner concerning the prohibited goods — Relevance of the words “minta settle” uttered by the accused during the raid to the Raiding officer — Whether accused’s defence rebutted the Prosecution’s case on the balance of probabilities — Prosecution failed to file written submissions — Despite Court giving extensions — Subsequently only incomplete submissions filed — Failure to serve the written submissions on the accused — Court not having the benefit of the prosecutions’ reasons attacking the Magistrate’s findings and decision — Whether the Magistrate erred in her findings — Principles of appellate intervention 1 appeal against conviction and sentence — accused charged and convicted under section 15(1)(a) DDA and sentenced to RM5000 fine and eight month’s imprisonment in default — whether accused was arrested before he gave his urine specimen — whether there was an arrest under section 31(1) DDA — whether the presumption under section 37(k) was legally invoked 1 Section 302 of the Penal Code — The defence of insanity — Overall circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution points to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused had committed the offence and the defence of insanity raised was failed — The accused capable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law — Appeal is dismissed. 1
Against conviction — Decision from the Sessions Court — Principles of appellate intervention — Charge under s. 304 (a) PC — Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case — Whether the sole eyewitness is credible — Whether there exists doubt regarding how the victim suffered the injury — Shoddy investigations — Failure to prepare a search list for the weapons — Failure to investigate if the victim was involved in a road accident instead — Non-existence of the accused or the victim’s DNAA on the weapons weakens the prosecution’s case — Failure to investigate two other persons who also hit the victim — Failure to establish ownership of the two motorcars — Prosecution’s case is not weaken in light of the direct evidence from sole eyewitness on the incident — Whether Court failed to consider the defence — Prosecution’s appeal — Against decision of the Court in finding the accused guilty of a lesser charge under s 304 (b) PC — Whether Court erred in finding the accused guilty of a lesser charge under s 304 (b) PC upon calling the accused to enter defence on the original charge under s 304 (a) — Appeal by the accused and prosecution against sentence — Whether sentence is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate. 3 cases
whether the failure of the trial court to explain to the Appellant that he has the right to have an advocate to defend his case would render the Appellant’s plea of guilty invalid — whether the trial court has the responsibility to explain to an accused on his right to have an advocate to defend him before his plea is admitted. 3 cases
appeal against the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court Judge 2 cases
s 376(1) Penal Code -Complainant is an Indonesian, fled from her employer's house — Appellant is a police officer, brought the complainant to a hotel and had sexual intercourse with her 1 case
Decision from the Magistrate’s Court — Charge under s. 135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967 — For loading prohibited goods onto a motorcar — Accused discharged and acquitted end of prosecution’s case — Prosecution appealed to the High Court — High Court ordered accused to enter his defence — Burden to rebut the statutory presumption — Under s. 135 (2) Customs Act 1967 on the accused — On a balance of probabilities — Accused’s defence — He has no knowledge of the prohibited goods — He was asked by his employer to drive the employer’s motorcar from Kulai to Batu Pahat — No prohibited goods in the motorcar along the journey — Employer asked the accused to park the motorcar park behind a restaurant — And not to lock the motorcar and leave the keys inside — Accused heard employer taking over the phone asking his workers to load goods into the motorcar — Accused's defence corroborated by friend’s evidence — Who followed him in the motorcar and was at the restaurant — Customs aware motorcar does not belong to the accused and belongs to one Chok Yuk Fui — Failure by Customs to locate and investigate the owner concerning the prohibited goods — Relevance of the words “minta settle” uttered by the accused during the raid to the Raiding officer — Whether accused’s defence rebutted the Prosecution’s case on the balance of probabilities — Prosecution failed to file written submissions — Despite Court giving extensions — Subsequently only incomplete submissions filed — Failure to serve the written submissions on the accused — Court not having the benefit of the prosecutions’ reasons attacking the Magistrate’s findings and decision — Whether the Magistrate erred in her findings — Principles of appellate intervention 1 case
appeal against conviction and sentence — accused charged and convicted under section 15(1)(a) DDA and sentenced to RM5000 fine and eight month’s imprisonment in default — whether accused was arrested before he gave his urine specimen — whether there was an arrest under section 31(1) DDA — whether the presumption under section 37(k) was legally invoked 1 case
Section 302 of the Penal Code — The defence of insanity — Overall circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution points to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused had committed the offence and the defence of insanity raised was failed — The accused capable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law — Appeal is dismissed. 1 case
Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Cases
bl-42jskh-4-03-2025
MOHD ALI BIN SULAIMAN v Pendakwa Raya
23 November 2025
MYHC
bl-42jskh-5-03-2025
MOHD ALI BIN SULAIMAN v Pendakwa Raya
23 November 2025
MYHC
ja-42s-6-05-2023
Mohd Hanaffey Bin Mahadi v Pendakwa Raya
13 October 2025
MYHC
jb-42s-4-08-2023
CHUA LI PIN v Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA]
2 July 2025
MYHC
jb-42s-5-08-2023
Song Chun Ru v Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA]
2 July 2025
MYHC
jb-42s-7-08-2023
Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA] v 1. ) CHUA LI PIN 2. ) SONG CHUN RU
2 July 2025
MYHC
jb-41lb-4-07-2024
Pendakwa Raya [Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)] v ONG BOON SIONG
12 June 2025
MYHC
bl-42h-10-10-2024
MUHAMMAD BARUR RAHIM BIN HISAM v Pendakwa Raya
2 June 2025
MYHC
bl-42h-8-10-2024
MUHAMMAD BARUR RAHIM BIN HISAM v Pendakwa Raya
2 June 2025
MYHC
bl-42h-9-10-2024
MUHAMMAD BARUR RAHIM BIN HISAM v Pendakwa Raya
2 June 2025
MYHC
ba-41sa-3-06-2024
AHWAZ BIN ABDUL RANI v Pendakwa Raya [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)]
16 January 2025
MYHC
a-05m-244-05-2022
YOU POH KHOON v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
5 March 2023
MYCOA