IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

HOLDEN AT BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 09 0F 2023

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

AWANG SULAIMAN BIN HJ MUHAMMAD

(BGIC NO, 31-08279. D.O.B. 12/1/1990)

1.0 Introduction (Opening):

May it pleases the court, my name is Nurul Fatin. I appear as duty solicitor for the
defendant Awang Sulaiman Bin Hj Muhammad and my learned friend Ms/Mr (Public
prosecutor). We are here for the defendant application for bail as general right under
section 347 of Criminal Procedure Code Chapter 7.

2.0 Summary fact:

D is a permanent resident (Malaysian) and a married man. He just moved back to

Brunei with his wife as he obtained a good job in Brunei. D is concerned with who will
provide for his wife if he is remanded as D’s wife has been unable to find employment in
Brunei. D’s office situated in Lion heart Square. D was nowhere near the scene of this
hold-up when it occurred. As a matter of fact, D was on leave as D and D’s wife decided
to take a short vacation. Victim’s car and backpack have yet to be recovered. The past
police file report against him was inappropriate in this case as no charges were ever
brought to him and all claims found to be false. D denies charges against him.

3.0 Legal Principles:

Defining Theft and Provisos:

Theft involves the appropriation of a movable property belonging to another person who
is deprived of such possession without his consent or against his will, and such
appropriation is done with dishonest intent.
Section 378 of the Brunei Penal Code defines theft as follows: Whoever, intending to
take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that
person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit “theft”.

The D is charge under section 379 of Penal Code states that: Whoever commits theft
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, fine or both.

In Norfazil bin Tamit v Public Prosecutor [2003] 1 JCBD 274, BLR 274, the appellant
pleaded guilty to two counts of theft of cars contrary to section 379 of the Penal Code
and was sentenced to consecutive terms of 1 year’s imprisonment.

Defining Criminal Force and Provisos:

Criminal force involves the use of force to a person without his or her consent. On the
other hand, assault generally applies to all non-fatal offences but it bears a specific and
narrow meaning under the Penal Code. In essence, it involves the accused threatening
to use force to a person in his or her presence.

The D is charge under Section 354 of Penal code which deals with the issue of assault
or criminal force to person with intent to outrage modesty. Stated: “Whoever assaults or
uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to outrage, or knowing it to be likely
that he will thereby outrage the modesty of that person, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years and whipping”

Caselaw: In Rajeevan Edakalavan v PP [1998] 1 SLR 815, the accused was

convicted of an offence under section 354 of the Penal Code for slipping his left hand
through the gap between the window and the victim’s seat while they were traveling in a
bus. He then pressed the victim’s blouse twice at the left breast region.

However the two offences above is not commited by the Defendant as he is mistakenly
identify with another person.

Defining Mistaken identity

Mistaken identity is a defense in criminal law which claims the actual innocence of the
criminal defendant, and attempts to undermine evidence of guilt by asserting that any
eyewitness to the crime incorrectly thought that they saw the defendant, when in fact
the person seen by the witness was someone else.

Most mistaken identity cases arise from photo arrays and lineup identification during the
initial phases of a criminal investigation as what happen in this case. For example, the
police may ask a crime victim for a description of his or her attacker and then gather
suspects that fit the provided description. This may entail showing photographs of
known criminals or having suspects appear for lineup identification.

4.0 Conclusion:

Our defense is that the witnesses for the State who have attempted to identify Awang
Sulaiman are mistaken. There is no Like many a mystery, this one is a case of mistaken
identity.