Skip to main content

CRIMINAL LAW: After having found prosecution has established a prima facie case, trial Judge has to call accused to enter his defence

In Pendakwa Raya v Pang Kar Foong [2026] 4 MLRA 23, the Court of Appeal observed as follows:

 

“[30] Berhubung sama ada YA Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah khilaf apabila mempertimbangkan pembelaan perbuatan seseorang yang tidak sempurna akal di bawah s 84 Kanun Keseksaan di akhir kes pendakwaan sedangkan undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa pertimbangan sedemikian hanya boleh dilakukan di akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah ini kini terikat dengan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes PP v. Mohd Rozani Yahaya [2025] 1 MLRA 203 yang telah mengakas keputusan Mahkamah ini. Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam alasannya telah dengan jelas memutuskan sebagaimana berikut:

 

“[67] Secondly, after having found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case as charged, it is incumbent for the learned trial Judge to call for the accused to enter his defence. It is premature for the learned trial to acquit the accused at the end of the prosecution’s case based solely on medical evidence, as that is not a complete defence in law as envisaged under ss 84 or 85(2)(b) of the Penal Code. The learned trial Judge should have continued with the trial and heard the defence’s version. It is certainly premature for the learned trial Judge at the end of the prosecution’s case to determine whether or not the accused was of unsound mind when he committed the offence as the onus of proving the defence on a balance of probabilities was on the accused at the defence stage of the trial. Having found that the offence of murder had been established by the prosecution, it is incumbent upon the trial Judge to direct the accused to state his defence. By failing to do so, the learned trial Judge had fallen into a serious error of law, which was repeated by the Court of Appeal, which warranted appellate intervention.”...”

Popular posts from this blog

Law updates - General (Malaysian law unless otherwise stated)

*Abbreviations   HC = high court  COA = court of appeal  FC = federal court   Ngu Toh Tung & 7 Ors v Superintendent of Lands & Survey, Kuching Division, Kuching & Anor [COA] administrative law; land acquisition J & C New Poly Catering Sdn Bhd v TTMP Bakun Consortium Sdn Bhd [HC] The general rule is that a high court will not issue an injunction to restrain the execution of another high court order. However, the high court possesses inherent jurisdiction to do justice in each case. Thus, an interim injunction could be issued to restrain execution of a decree if it could be shown that the execution would result in an injury to the party against whom the execution was directed at. As a matter of practice, applications for a garnishee order are made before the sar or dr and the decision is appealable to a judge in chambers. Even though under the rules of the high court 1980, service of originating process or other court documents on a corporation...
Read more

Probate & Administration; Tort; Civil Procedure: Case Updates

Ong Thye Peng v Loo Choo Teng & 7 Ors [2008] 1 AMR 757 [FC] Section 60 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1959 ("the Act") is concerned with the manner of disposal of the property of a deceased person by his personal representative. An executor is a trustee of the property of the beneficiaries just as an administrator is. Their duty was to ensure that the estate, of which they are trustees, benefits as much as possible when they deal with trust property. Thus, the obligation of executors and administrators towards the estate of which they are personal representatives must be the same because their primary duty was to protect the rights and interests of the beneficiaries. There can therefore be no difference in the duty of administrators and executors in the sale of estate property. It followed that even in the case of a sale of property by an executor, the relevant date to determine whether the price for the property is fair is not at the time of the offer but at t...
Read more

What are the available remedies to a purchaser when he is given a defective house out of time by the seller developer?

In LSSC Development Sdn Bhd v Thomas Iruthayam & Anor [2007] 2 CLJ 434, the Court of Appeal held that where purchasers were given a defective house out of time by the developer, for the defects, that was something for which they were entitled to be compensated. As for the delay in delivery, the contract itself contained a clause which provided the formula for the compensation that the developer must pay for its lateness. This was the clause to which the purchasers have recourse as it created a contractual obligation to pay a single sum by way of liquidated damages for the period during which they were kept out of the building for which they had already paid, such sum being calculated upon the basis set out in the sale and purchase agreement.
Read more