TONG KAM YEW & ANOR vs PP - 2013 MarsdenLR 1100

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 MarsdenLR 1100

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TONG KAM YEW & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Hisyam Teh Poh Teik ,Respondent Advocate: Mohamad Abazafree

Table of Content
1. final order of acquittal for appellants (Para 1)
2. mistrial due to critical procedural errors (Para 2 , 9 , 10)
3. errors in judge's handling of evidence. (Para 3 , 16 , 28)
4. factual background of trafficking charges (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 22 , 23)
5. conviction based on incomplete legal analysis. (Para 7 , 8 , 17)
6. misdirection and non-direction leading to unsafe conviction (Para 12 , 14 , 20)
7. failure to consider alternative charges affecting trial integrity (Para 15 , 18 , 30)
8. critical examination of trial process integrity. (Para 19)
9. overview of factual allegations in charges. (Para 21)
10. issues in the trial regarding witness credibility. (Para 24 , 25)
11. miscarriage of justice from procedural errors. (Para 26)
12. trial judge's misdirection on legal standards. (Para 31)

[1] Both the appellant/accused's appeal against conviction and sentence came up for hearing on 25 January 2013 and upon hearing we were unanimous in allowing the appeals. My learned brothers Mohamed Apandi Ali JCA and Linton Albert JCA have read the draft judgment and approved the same. This is our judgment.

[2] At the outset we must say this is a classic case of mistrial as well as miscarriag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 MarsdenLR 1100

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYATONG KAM YEW & ANOR – AppellantVersusPP – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TONG KAM YEW & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent