Prosecution withdraws appeal against acquittal of Nalina Nair for disorderly conduct
KUALA LUMPUR: Selangor DAP Wanita secretary Nalina Nair Rama Krishnan remains free of a charge of rioting and disorderly conduct at a police station four years ago.
This is following the prosecution withdrawing its appeal against the Magistrate's Court's decision that acquitted Nalina Nair on Aug 10, 2023.
Deputy public prosecutor Noor Dayana Mohamad informed High Court judge Justice Muhammad Jamil Hussin that the prosecution was no longer pursuing the appeal when the case was brought up in court here on Wednesday (May 7).
"The prosecution's appeal is hereby withdrawn," Justice Muhammad Jamil said.
Nalina Nair was represented by lawyer Farida Mohamad during the proceedings.
On Aug 10, 2023, magistrate Nadia Othman acquitted Nalina Nair after finding the prosecution failed to prove prima facie at the end of the prosecution's case.
On Aug 26, 2021, Nalina Nair was charged with rioting, disorderly behaviour or hurling insults at the lobby area of the Dang Wangi police headquarters here at 9pm on Aug 19, 2021.
The charge was under Section 90 of the Police Act 1967, which carries a maximum of RM500 or six months imprisonment or both.
A total of five prosecution witnesses were called to testify at the trial.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
17 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Appeals court to hear Anwar's interim stay to suspend trial on Tuesday
On Wednesday, Justice Roz Mawar Rozain dismissed Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's application to refer eight questions to the Federal Court as they failed to cross the threshold set out in Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. (Bernama pic) PUTRAJAYA : The Court of Appeal will hear Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's application for an interim stay of the trial of a civil suit filed by a former research assistant on Tuesday, pending the outcome of an appeal. Lawyer K Rajasegaran, who appeared for Anwar, said the date was fixed following case management before a court deputy registrar this afternoon. Rajasegaran said the court also fixed July 21 to hear a permanent stay application of the trial until the outcome of Anwar's appeal to set aside the High Court's refusal to refer eight legal questions arising from the suit. Anwar had wanted the Federal Court to determine whether a sitting prime minister could be given protection from 'frivolous and politically motivated' suits while holding office. In the stay application filed yesterday by Messrs Zain Megat & Murad, the solicitors said there existed special circumstances to suspend the assault suit scheduled to begin in the High Court on June 16. They said the appeal to refer the legal questions to the Federal Court would be nugatory if the trial proceeded. 'The adjournment in the High Court is of utmost importance and is necessary to preserve the principles of justice, equality and constitutional integrity,' they said. They said the postponement would allow for complex and high-impact constitutional questions to be properly determined and interpreted. On Wednesday, Justice Roz Mawar Rozain dismissed Anwar's reference application, when it ruled that all eight questions posed failed to cross the threshold set out in Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. She said none of the articles cited in the Federal Constitution, as argued by Anwar's lawyers, gave rise to any real, substantial and justiciable questions of law that require a determination by the apex court. Roz Mawar had ordered for the trial of Yusoff Rawther's suit to begin at 9am on June 16 as scheduled. The prime minister wanted the apex court to rule whether Articles 5(1), 8(1), 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution grant him qualified immunity from a suit filed by Yusoff four years ago. The suit relates to events which allegedly took place before Anwar took office on Nov 24, 2022. Yusoff, a grandson of the late Penang consumer advocate SM Mohamed Idris, claims he was assaulted at Anwar's home in Segambut in October 2018. He is seeking general, special, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as interest, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court. Anwar denies the claim and has filed a countersuit.
New Straits Times
21 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Prisoner escapes gallows, gets seven years for killing cellmate
TAIPING: An oil palm plantation worker escaped the death penalty after the High Court here today sentenced him to seven years' jail on an amended charge of manslaughter involving the death of a detainee at Taiping Prison six years ago. Judge Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin handed down the sentence on Mohd Nizam Shah Shahruddin, 40, after he pleaded guilty to the amended charge under Section 304(b) of the Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He was previously charged under Section 302 for murder. The prison term was ordered to begin from the date of his arrest on Aug 29, 2019. Nizam was suspected of causing the death of Chua Teng Wooi, 41, at the Taiping Prison remand cell at about 9.30pm on the same day. Noor Ruwena said the decision was reached after considering the facts of the case, submissions by both the prosecution and defence, as well as the statements of the accused and witnesses. The court accepted that Nizam had raised reasonable doubt regarding any intent to kill, stating he was angered by the victim's behaviour and intended only to "teach him a lesson." According to the judge, testimony revealed that Chua had been beaten by multiple detainees in the remand cell due to his habit of defecating indiscriminately, believed to be caused by diarrhoea. The court also noted uncertainties over whether the accused and others were responsible for the lung injuries that caused the victim's death, citing testimony suggesting the injuries may have resulted from a fall in the prison toilet due to poor lighting. "The accused's statement that he had awakened other inmates to help the deceased after the fall, and had carried the deceased, was not disputed. The affidavit stating that other detainees had also assaulted the victim was similarly unchallenged," said Noor Ruwena. Deputy public prosecutor Sally Chay Mei Ling led the prosecution, while counsel Rajit Singh Tara Singh represented the accused.
The Star
a day ago
- The Star
Lawyers face sanctions for citing fake cases with AI, warns UK judge
FILE PHOTO: A message reading "AI artificial intelligence," a keyboard and robot hands are seen in this illustration created on January 27, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo LONDON (Reuters) -Lawyers who use artificial intelligence to cite non-existent cases can be held in contempt of court or even face criminal charges, London's High Court warned on Friday, in the latest example of generative AI leading lawyers astray. A senior judge lambasted lawyers in two cases who apparently used AI tools when preparing written arguments, which referred to fake case law, and called on regulators and industry leaders to ensure lawyers know their ethical obligations. "There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused," Judge Victoria Sharp said in a written ruling. "In those circumstances, practical and effective measures must now be taken by those within the legal profession with individual leadership responsibilities ... and by those with the responsibility for regulating the provision of legal services." The ruling comes after lawyers around the world have been forced to explain themselves for relying on false authorities, since ChatGPT and other generative AI tools became widely available more than two years ago. Sharp warned in her ruling that lawyers who refer to non-existent cases will be in breach of their duty to not mislead the court, which could also amount to contempt of court. She added that "in the most egregious cases, deliberately placing false material before the court with the intention of interfering with the administration of justice amounts to the common law criminal offence of perverting the course of justice". Sharp noted that legal regulators and the judiciary had issued guidance about the use of AI by lawyers, but said that "guidance on its own is insufficient to address the misuse of artificial intelligence". (Reporting by Sam Tobin; Editing by Sachin Ravikumar)
