Samry bin Masri

On the judicial record

A High Court judge whose reported corpus combines serious drug trials with professional-negligence, banking and road-traffic matters, in both Bahasa Malaysia and English.

Justice Samry bin Masri sits in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), and the reported decisions in this corpus combine civil and criminal work, with serious drug trials, professional-negligence claims and commercial disputes, in both Bahasa Malaysia and English. Narcotics trials under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), read where relevant with seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (section 34 of the Penal Code), recur across the docket, several involving multiple accused charged jointly following raids on premises, and possession charges under seksyen 12(2). The judgments work through whether the prosecution has established the elements of trafficking and possession against each accused.

Professional negligence features through a claim by a client against a firm of advocates and solicitors engaged to prepare a sale-and-purchase agreement, concerning the handling of the settlement deadline. Commercial and banking disputes appear, including an action by a company against a bank that had taken a charge over a third party's land as security for financing, raising the parties' respective rights over the charged property.

Civil-procedure practice is well represented, including an application to amend a writ and statement of claim, decided by reference to whether the proposed amendments were bona fide and did not change the character of the suit. Road-traffic appeals from the Sessions Court on liability and quantum also feature, as do prosecution appeals — for example against the acquittal and discharge of a respondent on numerous charges under section 16(a)(A) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 concerning the alleged receipt of gratification. Such prosecution appeals require the court to consider whether the Sessions Court correctly found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to sustain the many gratification charges. The corpus reflects a High Court judge managing a mixed criminal and civil list, deciding each matter on the evidence adduced and the governing statutory provision rather than at large, with the sufficiency of proof against each accused the recurring touchstone in the criminal work.