Muhammad Huzairi bin Razali v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Muhammad Huzairi Bin Razali

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid
• YA Dato' Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh

• The appellant was convicted in the High Court on two charges of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code for the killing of two victims within minutes of each other at a coffee shop and a nearby durian stall, and was sentenced to death by hanging on both charges.
• The prosecution's case, supported by eyewitness testimony and pathological evidence, was that the appellant attacked the first victim with a parang causing fatal stab and slash wounds, then moments later attacked and fatally stabbed the second victim.
• At trial, the appellant raised the defence of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Penal Code, claiming no memory of the killings and alleging a history of mental illness and drug addiction, but called a prison medical officer (not a qualified psychiatrist) rather than the psychiatrist who had prepared a psychiatric report on him.

• Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the defence of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Penal Code, and whether the defence had discharged its burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act 1950 on a balance of probabilities.
• Whether the two-stage test for establishing insanity — first proving "medical insanity" through expert evidence, then proving "legal insanity" (incapacity to know the nature or wrongfulness of the act) — had been satisfied.
• Whether, having upheld the convictions, the Court had discretion to commute the mandatory death sentence to a term of imprisonment under current sentencing provisions, and if so, on what terms.

• The Court affirmed that the defence's failure to call the qualified psychiatrist who had examined the appellant, relying instead on a non-specialist medical officer who confirmed the appellant had no major psychiatric illness, meant the appellant failed to establish even the threshold requirement of "medical insanity" on a balance of probabilities; the question of "legal insanity" therefore did not arise.
• The Court held that a request for further psychiatric observation is not a recognised defence in law, and unanimously upheld the trial judge's rejection of the Section 84 defence and confirmed the safety of both convictions under Section 302.
• Exercising its sentencing discretion under current law, the Court set aside the death sentences and substituted them with 30 years' imprisonment (from date of arrest) and 12 strokes of whipping for each charge, ordering the two prison terms to run consecutively given that two lives were lost.