The Coroner's Court determines the cause of death based on evidence, ruling misadventure when no criminal liability is established.

JUDGMENT

Ainul Shahrin Mohamad SCJ:

Introduction

[1] Dissatisfied with the verdict of Misadventure delivered by the Coroner's Court, family of the deceased filed a review against the said verdict.

Findings

[2] The deceased was a male Chinese boy named Hon Seong Yan, IC number 001025-14-2457. At the time of death was 16 years of age. The deceased was also known as Clement.

[3] As to manner of his death, the Coroner's Court found:

[i] the deceased was seen standing at the corridor of room 516 Grand Kampar Hotel;

[ii] the deceased was seen smoking at the corridor, while sitting on the aircond compressor outside the room;

[iii] the deceased was seen climbing out of the window to the balcony, using a chair or a coffee table;

[iv] some time, between the time the deceased was seen climbing out to the window to the balcony at 12.50 am. and his body found at 1.15 am, when the deceased fell to his death.

[4] As to when the deceased passed away - according to the post mortem report in exhibit I-1, the date and time of death was on 12 August 2017 at 1.15 am. This finding in exhibit I-1 was supported by police report Kampar/2356/17 in exhibit I-6.

[5] As to where the deceased passed away - according to the post mortem report in exhibit I-1, the deceased was found dead at the lobby of the Grand Kampar Hotel. This was supported by police report Kam par/2356/17 in exhibit I-6.

[6] As to the cause of death - cause of death can be found in the post mortem report in exhibit I-1, where the cause of death was stated as Severe Head Injury Secondary To Alleged Fall From Height.

[7] As to whether there was any person involved in the deceased's death-this Court rules in the negative.

[8] Hence, the Verdict - there was evidence that the deceased was afraid of height, there was evidence that the window was closed, and in an attempt to get inside the room from the balcony, without any help where this Court saw in the re-enactment, Miss Julie (SI-13) needed help to get in, so this Court, after perusing the testimonies of the witnesses, exhibits tendered and marked, folios in the original SDR, submissions and the entire case, makes a finding that on the balance of probabilities, the deceased slipped and fell to his death.

[9] Therefore, the verdict in this inquest is - Misadventure.

The Law

[10] Part VIII Chapter XXXII of the Criminal Procedure Code [Act 593] deals with inquiries of death.

[11] Section 328 of Act 593 defines cause of death and reads:

In this Chapter the words "cause of death" include not only the apparent cause of death as ascertainable by inspection or post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased, but also all matters necessary to enable an opinion to be formed as to the manner in which the deceased came by his death and as to whether his death resulted in any way from, or was accelerated by, any unlawful act or omission on the part of any other person.

[Emphasis Added]

[12] Based on the above section, the manner in which the deceased came to his death by sustaining severe head injury secondary to alleged fall from height, whether it was resulted by any unlawful act or omission of any other person.

[13] Section 337 of Act 593 reads:

A Magistrate holding an inquiry shall inquire when, where, how and after what manner the deceased came by his death and also whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of the death.

[Emphasis Added]

[14] Based on s 337 above, the matters to be inquired into the deceased person's passing are:

[i] when;

[ii] where;

[iii] how;

[iv] after what manner; and

[v] whether any person is criminally concerned.

[15] Thus, the Coroner's Court is dutybound to find the answers to these 5 questions and details as who should be blamed, who is guilty or may be guilty of any offence are not within the scope of the Coroner's Court exercising its duty under the said section.

[16] In Re Anthony Chang Kim Fook, Deceased , 2007 MarsdenLR 2799 , the Court held that an inquest is an attempt to establish facts and the Coroner cannot act outside