FAROSE TAMURE MOHAMAD KHAN vs PP & OTHER APPEALS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 MarsdenLR 2500

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
FAROSE TAMURE MOHAMAD KHAN – Appellant
Versus
PP & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent

Table of Content
1. appellants' conviction stems from shared responsibility and intent in a collective crime. (Para 1 , 4 , 30 , 32)
2. overview of appeal and charges against the appellants. (Para 2 , 5)
3. court's assessment of the trial judge's decision on common intention. (Para 34)
4. establishing common intention is vital for liability under s 34, evidenced by coordinated actions. (Para 46 , 66 , 85)
5. common intention among all accused confirmed through events and testimonies. (Para 76 , 81 , 84 , 94)
6. the appeals against convictions were dismissed, reaffirming guilty verdicts. (Para 124)

[1] This is an appeal by the four appellants against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 13 May 2013, dismissing the appellants' appeal against the conviction and sentence by the High Court.

[2] The four appellants were charged under s 302 of the Penal Code read with s 34 of the same Code in respect of the death of one Catherine Chong Jang Joon ("the deceased"). The charge against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants reads as follows:

"That you, together with two others still at large, on the 9th day of August, 2007, at about 1.30am at a spot at the Car Park of the Central Park Commercial Centr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 MarsdenLR 2500

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYAFAROSE TAMURE MOHAMAD KHAN – AppellantVersusPP & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
FAROSE TAMURE MOHAMAD KHAN – Appellant
Versus
PP & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent