The High Court in 2023 quashed a man’s conviction for house trespass after finding that the charge was defective and that the offence intended to be committed fell outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court.
Chief Justice Dato Seri Paduka Steven Chong made the decision on March 21, 2023 in Public Prosecutor v Md Ariffin bin Abd Rahman, Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2023.
The case arose after Md Ariffin was initially charged in the Magistrate’s Court on December 10, 2022 with theft in a dwelling house under section 380 of the Penal Code. The prosecution withdrew that charge five days later and substituted charges of house trespass under section 451 of the Penal Code and consumption of methylamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug, under section 6(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Md Ariffin pleaded guilty to the house trespass charge and contested the drug charge.
The prosecution’s Statement of Facts stated that he had broken into the house intending to steal. He admitted the intention in his police statement and was found hiding in a wardrobe by the houseowner’s son, in possession of items including cash stolen from the house.
The Chief Justice held that a charge of house trespass must specify the offence the accused intended to commit upon entering the dwelling. The prosecution’s failure to identify that intended offence rendered the section 451 charge defective.
The conviction was also unsustainable because the facts established that the intended offence was theft. A charge of house trespass with intent to commit theft fell outside the Magistrate’s Court’s jurisdiction and had to be tried in the High Court.
The prosecution indicated that it would seek to withdraw the section 451 charge and substitute a lesser charge of house trespass under section 448 of the Penal Code, which fell within the Magistrate’s Court’s jurisdiction.
The Chief Justice accepted that this course of action was within the Public Prosecutor’s authority under section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which confers general direction and control over criminal prosecutions.
He quashed the conviction under section 451 and remitted the case to the Magistrate’s Court to allow the prosecution to make the necessary applications. Prosecutor Syazwani Jumat appeared for the prosecution, while Md Ariffin represented himself.