Our records speaks for ourself! Choose our law firm to represent your rights!
Success Cases
PP V ANANTHAN & ORS
PP V SHANMATURA & ORS
PP V SHANMATURA & ORS
At the conclusion of the prosecution case, the Shah Alam High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against all of the defendants in this case, which was heard before Yang Arif Dato' Zulkifli bin Bakar. At the prosecution stage of the case, each accused person successfully established the defence
At the conclusion of the prosecution case, the Shah Alam High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against all of the defendants in this case, which was heard before Yang Arif Dato' Zulkifli bin Bakar. At the prosecution stage of the case, each accused person successfully established the defence of alibi.
In this case, neither direct nor circumstances evidence was succesfully proved by the prosecutors, that all the defendants were responsible for the victim's death.
PP V SHANMATURA & ORS
PP V SHANMATURA & ORS
PP V SHANMATURA & ORS
After four years of facing trials that were delayed due to Covid-19 (two years not going as usual), the defense finally won.
In this case, all the accused were acquitted and acquitted of the charges under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. There was a conflict of testimony between the prosecution witnesses, especially about the i
After four years of facing trials that were delayed due to Covid-19 (two years not going as usual), the defense finally won.
In this case, all the accused were acquitted and acquitted of the charges under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. There was a conflict of testimony between the prosecution witnesses, especially about the issue of access to the vehicle in which all the accused were riding. Since this contradiction of evidences has led to a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case, the Court has decided that all the accused are innocent.
PP V YUSZAIRUL YUSOFF
PP V SHANMATURA & ORS
PP V KHAIRI BIN ZAHARUDDIN & ORS
At the conclusion of the prosecution's case in this case, which was tried before Yang Arif Dato' Mohd Jamil, the court found that the accused was not guilty because there was no direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the deceased's death to the accused.
The deceased's cause of death remains undetermined which has given rise to a numb
At the conclusion of the prosecution's case in this case, which was tried before Yang Arif Dato' Mohd Jamil, the court found that the accused was not guilty because there was no direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the deceased's death to the accused.
The deceased's cause of death remains undetermined which has given rise to a number of theories about what caused the deceased to die. No evidence of "asphyxiation" or the effects of "petechiae" on the dead body exists, refuting the prosecution's assertion that the deceased may have died after having been smothered by the accused. It also cannot be proven by the prosecutor that the accused was the last person to be with the deceased in this case.
PP V KHAIRI BIN ZAHARUDDIN & ORS
PP V KHAIRI BIN ZAHARUDDIN & ORS
PP V KHAIRI BIN ZAHARUDDIN & ORS
In this case, the accused was charged with another accused under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. Due to the gap in the prosecution's narrative, the prosecution's attempt to refute the accused's defence was unsuccessful.
During our thorough cross-examination in this case, the police have been discovered trying to conceal the fa
In this case, the accused was charged with another accused under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. Due to the gap in the prosecution's narrative, the prosecution's attempt to refute the accused's defence was unsuccessful.
During our thorough cross-examination in this case, the police have been discovered trying to conceal the fact that the accused's wife was in a car outside the house where the incident occurred and that she were arrested together before being released at the police station on the day of the incident.
Additionally, it was discovered that the door of the house at the scene could be opened with a key other than the key seized by the police when the Court, the prosecution, and us visited the scene, establishing the possibility that someone other than the accused—who does not reside in the house—could access the house in question.
PP V WAN NORAINI WAN ABDULLAH
PP V KHAIRI BIN ZAHARUDDIN & ORS
PP V WAN NORAINI WAN ABDULLAH
In this case, the accused has been charged under Section 147 of the Financial Services Act for accepting deposits for investment purposes.
During the trial, we cross-examined three key witnesses and we have succeeded in proving that the alleged investment transaction was actually a gold sale and purchase transaction and not a deposit-tak
In this case, the accused has been charged under Section 147 of the Financial Services Act for accepting deposits for investment purposes.
During the trial, we cross-examined three key witnesses and we have succeeded in proving that the alleged investment transaction was actually a gold sale and purchase transaction and not a deposit-taking for investment as claimed.
As a result, the prosecution has applied to the Court for the accused's case to be discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA). We have strongly objected to the application and submitted to the Court that the accused should have been acquitted and discharged. The court agreed with our views and decided on our favour, acquitting and discharging the accused of the charge.
IZZATI BINTI ADI V PP
PP V KHAIRI BIN ZAHARUDDIN & ORS
PP V WAN NORAINI WAN ABDULLAH
In this case, the appellant (refer herein as an accused) has been charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code with murder and is accused of killing her newborn by giving birth in a college toilet. The case was tried in the Alor Setar High Court, and at the conclusion of the trial, the High Court determined that the prosecution had succee
In this case, the appellant (refer herein as an accused) has been charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code with murder and is accused of killing her newborn by giving birth in a college toilet. The case was tried in the Alor Setar High Court, and at the conclusion of the trial, the High Court determined that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced the accused to death. Following the High Court trial, we were appointed to take over the case from the prior counsel to handle the case at the Court of Appeal.
In lieu of that, we have sent a representation to the prosecution that the charges for the accused's case should be reviewed and we humbly proposed to the prosecution to amend the charge to Section 318 of the Penal Code after reviewing the appeal record and the facts of the case. The prosecution has counter-offered the charge to Section 309A of the Penal Code, which allows for imprisonment as opposed to capital punishment for the initial charge.
After significant consideration and discussion, the parties, in this case, have agreed to the counteroffer by the prosecution and further agreed that the death sentence imposed by the High Court be reduced to a 9-year jail sentence beginning on the date of her arrest.
Interestingly, the 9-year sentence was calculated using the Malaysian prison term computation technique, which resulted in the accused being released immediately on the same day the judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal.
