ARMY CASES



Armed Forces - Court martial - Appeal against decision of court martial

Facts:

Lt Kol Yusof bin Abdul Rahman was charged with three offences under the Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 77). He was found guilty of two of the offences and sentenced to a total of 18 months' imprisonment. He appealed against the decision of the court martial to the High Court. Issue:

Whether the court martial was wrong to call upon the accused to enter his defence. Held:

The court martial was wrong to call upon the accused to enter his defence. The prosecution had not closed its case and had not called all of its witnesses. The accused was entitled to have the charges dismissed. Judgment:

The High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the charges against the accused.



Armed Forces - Court martial - Procedure - Standard of proof at the end of prosecution's case

Facts:

Lt Kol Yusof bin Abdul Rahman was charged with three offences under the Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 77). The prosecution closed its case after calling two witnesses. The accused applied for the charges to be dismissed on the ground that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case. Issue:

What is the standard of proof to establish a prima facie case at the end of the prosecution's case in a court martial? Held:

The standard of proof to establish a prima facie case at the end of the prosecution's case in a court martial is the balance of probabilities. The prosecution must show that it is more likely than not that the accused is guilty of the offence charged. Judgment:

The High Court dismissed the application to dismiss the charges. The prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused.



Armed Forces - Court-martial - Jurisdiction

Facts:

Capt Mustapha bin Abdullah was charged with two offences under the Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 77). He was tried by a court martial and found guilty. He appealed against the decision of the court martial to the High Court. Issue:

Whether the court martial had jurisdiction to try the accused. Held:

The court martial did not have jurisdiction to try the accused. The offences with which the accused was charged were not service offences. Judgment:

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.





Armed Forces - Court-martial - Jurisdiction - Procedure

Facts:

Mejar Sundaraj was charged with two offences under the Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 77). He was tried by a court martial and found guilty. He appealed against the decision of the court martial to the High Court. Issue:

Whether the court martial had jurisdiction to try the accused. Held:

The court martial did have jurisdiction to try the accused. The offences with which the accused was charged were service offences. Judgment:

The High Court dismissed the appeal.



Armed Forces - Court-martial - Jurisdiction - Whether court-martial has jurisdiction to hear charge against member of armed forces for offence under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

Facts:

Mohd Yusof bin Mohd Salleh was charged with an offence under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Act 234). He was tried by a court martial and found guilty. He appealed against the decision of the court martial to the High Court. Issue:

Whether the court martial had jurisdiction to hear the charge. Held:

The court martial did not have jurisdiction to hear the charge. The offence with which the accused was charged was not a service offence. Judgment:

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction