1. ) [05-76-04/2017 (J)] LETITIA BOSMAN 2. ) [05-179-08/2017 (B)] JORGE CRESPO GOMEZ 3. ) [05-214-09/2017 (K)] BENJAMIN WILLIAM HAWKES 4. ) [05(M)-118-05/2018 (B)] PUBALAN S/O PEREMAL

1. ) [05-76-04/2017 (J)] LETITIA BOSMAN 2. ) [05-179-08/2017 (B)] JORGE CRESPO GOMEZ 3. ) [05-214-09/2017 (K)] BENJAMIN WILLIAM HAWKES 4. ) [05(M)-118-05/2018 (B)] PUBALAN S/O PEREMAL

Majority: Mandatory death provisions in s39B DDA and s302 PC do not violate Articles 5, 8 or 121 of the Federal Constitution; sentencing is a function delineated by statute, Parliament may prescribe mandatory penalties, presumption of constitutionality and deference to legislative policy on sensitive social issues require courts to uphold the provisions; pre‑Merdeka s302 need not be modified as no inconsistency established.

Citation
05-76-04/2017 (J); 05-179-08/2017 (B); 05-214-09/2017 (K); 05(M)-118-05/2018 (B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: Letitia Bosman; Appellant: Jorge Crespo Gomez; Appellant: Benjamin William Hawkes; Appellant: Pubalan s/o Peremal; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
J
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 August 2020
Case Number
05-76-04/2017 (J); 05-179-08/2017 (B); 05-214-09/2017 (K); 05(M)-118-05/2018 (B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (federal Court)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; constitutional challenges to mandatory death sentencing provisions rejected
Legal Topics
Mandatory Death Penalty, Separation of Powers, Proportionality, Fair Trial (mitigation), Pre Merdeka Legislation, Article 4 Supremacy
Source Language
Malay/English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Mandatory Death Penalty Separation of Powers Proportionality Fair Trial (mitigation) Pre Merdeka Legislation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Letitia Bosman

Appellant

Jorge Crespo Gomez

Appellant

Benjamin William Hawkes

Appellant

Pubalan s/o Peremal

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (federal Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mandatory death penalty under s39B DDA and s302 PC violates Article 121 (separation of powers)
  2. 2 Whether mandatory death penalty violates Article 5(1) (right to life/fair trial)
  3. 3 Whether mandatory death penalty violates Article 8(1) (equal protection/principle of proportionality)

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: Mandatory death provisions in s39B DDA and s302 PC do not violate Articles 5, 8 or 121 of the Federal Constitution; sentencing is a function delineated by statute, Parliament may prescribe mandatory penalties, presumption of constitutionality and deference to legislative policy on sensitive social issues require courts to uphold the provisions; pre‑Merdeka s302 need not be modified as no inconsistency established.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; constitutional challenges to mandatory death sentencing provisions rejected

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Convictions and death sentences affirmed by the Federal Court