• Today: October 15, 2026

High Court quashes house trespass conviction over defective charge

The High Court recently quashed a man’s house trespass conviction after ruling that the charge was defective and that the offence, as framed, fell outside the Magistrate’s Court’s jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Dato Seri Paduka Steven Chong ordered the case to be remitted to the Magistrate’s Court for the prosecution to take the necessary steps to amend the charge.

The defendant, Md Ariffin bin Abd Rahman, was initially charged with theft in a dwelling house under Section 380 of the Penal Code on December 10, 2022.

Five days later, the prosecution withdrew the charge and substituted it with two others: 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.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the house trespass charge but contested the drug consumption charge.

However, the High Court found that the Section 451 charge was defective because it did not specify the offence the defendant intended to commit when entering the house.

The prosecution’s statement of facts said the defendant had broken into the house intending to steal, which he also admitted in a police statement. He was later found hiding in a wardrobe by the homeowner’s son, and various items, including cash, had been stolen from the house.

The Chief Justice explained that a house trespass charge must specify the intended offence. In this case, the evidence indicated that the defendant had entered the house with the intention of committing theft.

He further noted that 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 Magistrate had identified the issue and referred the case to the High Court for revision.

During the proceedings, the prosecution indicated its intention to withdraw the Section 451 charge and replace it with a lesser charge of house trespass under Section 448 of the Penal Code, which falls within the Magistrate’s Court’s jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice said the proposed course of action was within the Public Prosecutor’s authority to direct and control criminal prosecutions under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

He therefore quashed the conviction under Section 451 and remitted the case to the Magistrate’s Court for the prosecution to make the necessary applications.

 

SOURCE/AUTHOR : BORNEO BULLETIN/Daniel Lim

Venues

BSB

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

Leave a Comment

Total visitors: 3,720,794 | Today's visitors: 20,408
Updated: 20:31:03