Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 145(3) federal constitution

Legal area

Court

13 Jan 2026

Mohammad Najib Bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas

Citation

W-01(IM)(NCvC)-907-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-01(IM)(NCvC)-907-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Attorney General is not immune as a matter of law from civil actions for abuse of prosecutorial power, but on the pleaded facts the appellant's claims fail: the misfeasance plea was premature while prosecutions were pending and lacked particulars of bad faith; the malicious process plea was inapposite to criminal prosecutions capable of terminating in the appellant's favour; negligence and article 8 claims were unsustainable or frivolous. For these reasons the High Court's striking out of the statement of claim is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
14 Aug 2025

CHEY AH KOW 1. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara 2. ) NG TZE SHEN

Citation

BA-25-145-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-145-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for leave dismissed because applicant failed to establish locus standi as an adversely affected person under Order 53 Rule 2(4) and failed to satisfy the two-step Sundra Rajoo threshold by adducing compelling prima facie evidence that the AG's decision to charge under s43(1) was illegal, irrational or tainted by mala fides; AG's discretion under Article 145(3) remains presumptively lawful and was properly exercised here.
12 Sept 2024

MOHD AMAR BIN MOHAMED 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) SYED TAHIR BIN SYED MOHAMED

Citation

BA-25-73-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-73-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave to commence judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to meet the heightened Sundra Rajoo two‑step threshold and did not adduce compelling prima facie evidence to rebut the presumption of legality attached to the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor's decision under Article 145(3) FC and section 254 CPC; no illegality, procedural impropriety, irrationality or mala fide was demonstrated.
26 Jan 2024

MOHAMED SIDDIQ BIN ANWAR BATCHA

Citation

WA-42K-10-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42K-10-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting a DNAA under section 254(3) CPC; the default position upon withdrawal is DNAA, and a DAA is only appropriate where circumstances justify depriving the prosecution of its Article 145(3) FC discretion; prosecution may lawfully prefer charges before completing further investigation and pursue or withdraw later without that rendering the charge groundless, therefore the revision application to set aside the DNAA was dismissed and the DNAA affirmed.
26 Oct 2023

CHRISTINE LIM CHOY WAN 1. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara 2. ) Pengarah Pendakwaan Negeri Selangor

Citation

BA-25-69-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-69-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to adduce compelling prima facie evidence to rebut the presumption of legality attached to the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor's prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3); absent evidence of illegality, procedural impropriety, irrationality or mala fides reaching the requisite threshold, the court will not review DNAA decisions at the leave stage.
6 Oct 2023

SHAHRUL IZAINI BIN RIZALMAN [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

CB-42JSKH-3-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-42JSKH-3-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed because the appellant was a youthful offender and the sentencing approach should emphasize rehabilitative measures under s293 Criminal Procedure Code read with s91(1)(f) Child Act 2001; the Sessions Court had applied youthful offender considerations but the High Court substituted the custodial sentence with a Henry Gurney order for three years commencing 06.10.2023; the decision to charge under section 376(1) was held to be within prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3) and not for the court to substitute absent exceptional grounds.
22 Aug 2023

KARTINI FARAH BINTI ABDUL RAHIM & 1 LAGI POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA & 2 LAGI

Citation

WA-25-162-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-162-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence judicial review was refused because applicants failed to meet the high two‑step threshold required to rebut the presumption of legality of the AG's decision (insufficient compelling prima facie evidence and no proof of mala fides), and the application was procedurally irregular for naming incorrect parties and failing to accurately identify the date of the impugned decision.
25 Apr 2022

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHAMMAD SHUKRI BIN DAUD SHAH

Citation

CF-82-3-04/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CF-82-3-04/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The magistrate held that the Deputy Public Prosecutor was lawfully entitled to apply for discontinuance and the court lawfully ordered release without acquittal (DNAA) under the Attorney General's powers in Article 145(3) and the provisions of sections 376 and 254 CPC; there was no procedural irregularity in granting DNAA and any challenge to that order is for the High Court to determine on appeal.
12 Apr 2022

1. ) SIVAKUMAR A/L SOCKALINGAM 2. ) RAJASEGARAN A/L MARIMUTHU YANG BERHORMAT PEGUAM NEGARA, MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-264-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-264-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicants have standing in the public interest context but failed to discharge the onerous burden of overcoming the presumption of legality attached to prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3); they did not present compelling prima facie evidence of mala fide or other recognised grounds for review; accordingly leave for judicial review is refused.
18 Aug 2020

MOHD KHAIRUL AZAM BIN ABDUL AZIZ TAN SRI MOHAN A/L K THOMAS @ TOMMY THOMAS

Citation

WA-89-374-03/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-89-374-03/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The magistrate declined to take cognizance and dismissed the complaint because the discontinuation of prosecution was an exercise of the Attorney General's constitutional prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3), the alleged offences were seizable and outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction, and the Public Prosecutor's indication under section 135(3) CPC mandated dismissal.