SANTANASAMY A/L MUTHIAH [ ]

SANTANASAMY A/L MUTHIAH [ ]

There is no statutory provision authorising concurrent execution of whipping/caning and established jurisprudence consistently construes the statutory regime and legislative omission to mean corporal punishments must be executed consecutively; therefore courts must order whipping to be carried out consecutively and not concurrently.

Citation
05(M)-146-08/2022(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: SANTANASAMY A/L MUTHIAH; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 October 2024
Case Number
05(M)-146-08/2022(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal to Federal Court / Majority Judgment on Appeal (disposition of Sentences)
Outcome
Court held that sentences of whipping/caning must be executed consecutively and not concurrently.
Legal Topics
Whipping/caning, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Criminal Procedure Code S.288(5), Dangerous Drugs Act Offences
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sentencing Statutory Interpretation Corporal Punishment Whipping/caning Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences Criminal Procedure Code S.288(5) Dangerous Drugs Act Offences

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SANTANASAMY A/L MUTHIAH

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal to Federal Court / Majority Judgment on Appeal (disposition of Sentences)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentences of whipping/caning imposed for multiple offences may be executed concurrently or only consecutively
  2. 2 Whether absence of express statutory power permits courts to order concurrent corporal punishment
  3. 3 Interaction between statutory limits on cumulative strokes and sentencing practice

Ratio Decidendi

There is no statutory provision authorising concurrent execution of whipping/caning and established jurisprudence consistently construes the statutory regime and legislative omission to mean corporal punishments must be executed consecutively; therefore courts must order whipping to be carried out consecutively and not concurrently.

Court Disposition

Court held that sentences of whipping/caning must be executed consecutively and not concurrently.

Orders

  • Conviction under section 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 set aside and substituted with conviction under section 12(2) DDA punishable under section 39A DDA
  • Sentence of death replaced; imposed 9 years imprisonment from date of arrest to run concurrently with sentence for second and third charges