. OUR EXPERIENCES . OUR EXPERTISES . OUR ACHIEVEMENTS .

At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, the Shah Alam High Court, presided over by Yang Arif Dato' Zulkifli bin Bakar, found that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against all defendants in the matter at hand. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, who were able to successfully establish the defense of alibi during the proceedings.

A prima facie case refers to the presentation of sufficient evidence by the prosecution to establish the defendant’s involvement in the crime, unless effectively rebutted by the defense. In this case, the prosecution was unable to provide either direct or circumstantial evidence to link the accused individuals to the victim’s death.

Despite efforts by the prosecution, the presented evidence failed to meet the threshold required to substantiate the defendants' involvement. The defense’s alibi  successfully created reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution’s case was not strong enough to proceed to the next phase of trial.

This ruling underscores the principle that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and if they fail to establish a compelling case, the defendants cannot be held liable for the alleged crime.

After a protracted legal battle lasting four years, including two years of delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the defense has successfully secured a favorable verdict for the accused. The Shah Alam High Court has acquitted all defendants of charges under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

A key factor in this decision was the significant contradiction in the testimonies by the prosecution witnesses after being thoroughly challenged by us, particularly concerning the issue of access to the vehicle in which all the accused were alleged to have been traveling. This inconsistency raised substantial doubts regarding the prosecution’s case, leading the Court to conclude that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the defendants’ involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a result, the Court determined that all the accused individuals were not guilty, upholding the fundamental legal principle that a conviction cannot stand where there is a reasonable doubt about the accused's involvement in the crime.

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. 

In this case, the accused faced charges under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, along with another co-accused. The prosecution's narrative was found to be incomplete, and its attempt to counter the defense's arguments ultimately failed.

Through a rigorous cross-examination, it was revealed that the police had attempted to conceal key details—specifically, that the accused's wife had been present in a car outside the residence at the time of the incident. Furthermore, she had been arrested alongside the accused but was later released at the police station the same day.

Additional revelations came to light during the site visit, where it was discovered that the door to the house in question could be opened with a key other than the one seized by the police. This raised the possibility that someone other than the accused, who did not reside at the house, could have accessed the premises.

This case highlights the importance of thorough investigation and cross-examination in challenging the prosecution’s evidence and establishing reasonable doubt.

In this matter, the accused was charged under Section 147 of the Financial Services Act for allegedly accepting deposits for investment purposes.

During the trial, our legal team conducted a thorough cross-examination of three key witnesses. Through this process, we successfully established that the transaction in question was, in fact, a gold sale and purchase transaction, rather than a deposit-taking arrangement for investment as asserted by the prosecution.

In light of these revelations, the prosecution subsequently filed an application for the accused’s case to be discharged not amounting to acquittal (DNAA). In response, we objected vehemently, submitting that the proper course of action was for the accused to be fully acquitted and discharged. The Court, after considering our submissions, agreed with our position and delivered a judgment in favor of the accused, acquitting and discharging them of the charges.

This case serves as a testament to the importance of meticulous cross-examination and the ability to challenge the prosecution’s assertions effectively, ultimately leading to the acquittal and discharge of the accused.

The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was initially charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code for the alleged murder of her newborn child, which occurred after she gave birth in a college toilet. The case was heard at the Alor Setar High Court, where the prosecution successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in a death sentence being imposed on the accused.

Following the High Court's decision, we were appointed to take over the case and represent the accused at the Court of Appeal. Upon reviewing the appeal records and the facts surrounding the case, we submitted a formal representation to the prosecution, advocating for a reconsideration of the charges. We proposed that the charge be amended to Section 318 of the Penal Code, which deals with the concealment of birth and carries a significantly lesser penalty than the initial charge of murder.

In response, the prosecution presented a counteroffer, proposing to amend the charge to Section 309A of the Penal Code, which provides for a term of imprisonment rather than the death penalty. After extensive discussions and careful consideration of the legal implications and the facts of the case, both parties agreed to the prosecution's counteroffer.

As a result, the Court of Appeal commuted the death sentence imposed by the High Court to a nine-year prison term, effective from the date of the accused's arrest. Notably, under the Malaysian prison term computation system, the accused was released on the same day the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment.

This case exemplifies the critical role of strategic legal representation, careful review of case details, and effective negotiation in achieving a just and fair outcome. The reduction in sentence, coupled with the accused's immediate release, underscores the judicial system's flexibility in adjusting sentences to reflect the specific circumstances of each case.

Read here for more info: https://www.kosmo.com.my/2023/06/20/bekas-mahasiswi-sebabkan-kematian-bayi-dalam-tandas-terlepas-hukuman-mati/

Our client was charged with six (6) counts under Section 16(a)(B) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009, involving allegations of soliciting bribes.

During trial, the Defence argued that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the Accused, especially as the main complainant failed to positively identify the Accused as the person who allegedly requested the bribes. Moreover, the claim of a meeting at Kemaman Kopitiam and the alleged request for monthly payments was shown to be unsubstantiated and unsupported by credible evidence.

The Honourable Court accepted the Defence’s submission that the testimony of Prosecution Witness 6 (SP6) was a fabricated narrative, constructed solely to implicate the Accused.

Due to the numerous material doubts raised during proceedings, the Court found it unsafe to convict. As a result, the Accused was acquitted and discharged of all six charges.

This case has established a binding precedent for lower courts on the responsibility of an accused individual to substantiate their defense during the defense stage of legal proceedings under Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which pertains to offenses related to drug abuse.

The ruling is significant as it provides clear guidance on the procedural standards that courts must follow when assessing and accepting the defense presented by the accused. The court emphasized that while the prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is still required to present a substantial defense if they seek to deny the alleged offense. 

Notably, in this case, apart from the technical issues addressed in detail, the court found that the defenses put forward by the accused were not mere blanket denials. Instead, they were supported by credible evidence, which played a crucial role in the outcome.

This decision has had a profound impact on defense law principles in Malaysia, becoming an essential reference for lower courts in managing cases that involve defenses at the trial stage. It underscores the requirement that defenses must be supported by solid evidence, not just unsupported denials, ensuring that the rights of the accused are properly protected within the legal framework.

Ultimately, the judgment reinforces the principle that a defense must be based on a robust factual foundation to be considered valid. This ensures fairness, transparency, and the integrity of the judicial process, while safeguarding the core principles of justice.

Further read on this case through the reported case of Muhammad Zhafri Mohammad Yunus v PP [2022] MLRHU 790 that can be found below.

As legal practitioners, we approach criminal cases with the utmost caution and diligence, particularly when the victims involved are children. Given the sensitive nature of such cases, we ensure that we only represent individuals who are truly INNOCENT or have not committed the offense as alleged in the charge.

In this particular case, we identified a clear and troubling motive from the victim and the complainant. It became evident that the complainant sought to extort a sum of money from the accused, under the false pretense of withdrawing the police report related to the offense. This conduct suggested an attempt to manipulate the legal process for personal gain.

Recognizing the serious implications of such actions, our legal team meticulously reviewed the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. We then submitted a formal representation to the prosecution, outlining the mala fide intentions of both the victim and the complainant, and arguing that they had attempted to entrap the accused. After carefully considering our submission, the prosecution agreed with our assessment and, as a result, decided to withdraw the charges against the accused.

This case highlights the importance of thorough investigation and strategic legal representation, especially in instances where there are attempts to abuse the legal system for ulterior motives. Our firm remains committed to ensuring that justice is served, particularly when an individual’s rights are being unjustly compromised.