Muhammad Nazizam Abdullah

Muhammad Nazizam Abdullah

The High Court held the sentencing judge did not err in principle: the offences involved repeated, planned incestuous rape of a child with severe consequences, justifying a deterrent and retributive long sentence; early guilty plea entitled appellant to a limited reduction, resulting in reduction of the 30‑year term to 27 years for the seven s.376(3) counts while the s.14(a) five‑year and s.16(1) three‑year sentences and the concurrency/consecutive ordering were upheld; confusion over caning quantum was resolved by directing total of 24 strokes only.

Citation
JB-42JSKH-5-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (perayu): Muhammad Nazizam bin Abdullah; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 October 2024
Case Number
JB-42JSKH-5-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (sentencing) / Appeal Against Sentence in High Court (decision)
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed: sentence for seven s.376(3) counts reduced from 30 years to 27 years; other sentences and ordering of concurrency/consecutive terms upheld; caning limited to 24 strokes total.
Legal Topics
Rape, Incest, Sentencing, Corporal Punishment (caning), Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Mitigation and Plea Credit
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Child Protection Rape Incest Sentencing Corporal Punishment (caning) Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Nazizam bin Abdullah

Appellant (perayu)

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (sentencing) / Appeal Against Sentence in High Court (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 30 years for each rape count was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Proper application of principles for concurrent versus consecutive sentences
  3. 3 Proper calculation and administration of corporal punishment (number of strokes)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the sentencing judge did not err in principle: the offences involved repeated, planned incestuous rape of a child with severe consequences, justifying a deterrent and retributive long sentence; early guilty plea entitled appellant to a limited reduction, resulting in reduction of the 30‑year term to 27 years for the seven s.376(3) counts while the s.14(a) five‑year and s.16(1) three‑year sentences and the concurrency/consecutive ordering were upheld; confusion over caning quantum was resolved by directing total of 24 strokes only.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed: sentence for seven s.376(3) counts reduced from 30 years to 27 years; other sentences and ordering of concurrency/consecutive terms upheld; caning limited to 24 strokes total.

Orders

  • Reduce imprisonment for the seven counts under Section 376(3) Kanun Keseksaan from 30 years to 27 years (for the aggregate running sentence)
  • Maintain imprisonment of 5 years for the offence under Section 14(a) Akta Kesalahan‑Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak‑Kanak 2017 and additional 3 years under Section 16(1) of the same Act