Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Concurrent sentences

  • 30 Jan 2026

    ABD GHAFAR BIN MOHAMED RAMLI

    Citation
    BA-45A-50-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-50-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Given the total cannabis weight of 4814.3 grams, the offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act warrant deterrent sentencing; guilty plea did not attract meaningful discount under the Act; applying established precedents the appropriate and proportionate sentence is 14 years' imprisonment and 10 strokes for each count, to run concurrently from date of arrest.

  • 28 Jan 2026

    [ ] MUHAMAD FIRDAUS BIN RAZALI

    Citation
    DA-62RS-24-08/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    DA-62RS-24-08/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    After considering the admitted facts, plea of guilty, first offender status, family responsibilities and public interest, the five-year imprisonment term (from arrest date) running concurrently with DA-62RS-20-08/2025 is appropriate and sufficient; however the omission to impose a fine or caning was identified and should be corrected by the higher court.

  • 26 Jan 2026

    KU MAHAMAD ISA BIN JAAFAR

    Citation
    AG-83RS-6-01/2026 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    AG-83RS-6-01/2026 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Accused was convicted of theft under Seksyen 380 read with Seksyen 34 based on CCTV identification and confession; balancing aggravating factors (repeated offences targeting places of worship, deception by religious appearance) and mitigating factors (advanced age, serious health issues, early plea), court imposed five years imprisonment and a fine of RM5,000 (default 1 year) and directed that the five year sentence for this offence run concurrently with the five year sentence imposed in AR-83RS-2-01/2026 starting 26 January 2026 to avoid disproportionate aggregate punishment while maintainin…

  • 5 Dec 2025

    HAFIZUL BIN HAWARI

    Citation
    BK-62-10-04/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BK-62-10-04/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Given the gravity of the offences and the public interest in deterrence, the court accepted the guilty plea as a mitigating factor but found it insufficient to outweigh the seriousness; imposed five years imprisonment for s.307 and seven years for s.326 to run concurrently with each other but directed that these sentences be separate from, and commence after, unrelated sentences from Kota Bharu (different transactions), in accordance with its discretion under s.282 Criminal Procedure Code.

  • 4 Dec 2025

    SAFUAN SAFRI BIN SAIFULBAHRI

    Citation
    B-09(H)-273-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    H
    Case number
    B-09(H)-273-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the sentences because the offences were grave, involved sexual offences against minors by a stepfather who betrayed a position of trust, the convictions and sentencing contained no error warranting reduction, and public interest and deterrence required the maintenance of the imposed punishments and ancillary statutory orders.

  • 20 Nov 2025

    MOHD NASIRI BIN MOHD RADZI

    Citation
    RA-62JSK-41-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    RA-62JSK-41-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court accepted the child victim's sworn testimony as competent, credible and sufficient under ss.17 and 18 Akta 792, corroborated by medical findings and supporting witnesses; defence alibi and interested witness testimony were unreliable; thus elements of sexual assault under s.14(a) Akta 792 and rape under s.376(2)(f) Kanun Keseksaan were proved beyond reasonable doubt, warranting conviction and the sentencing orders made (concurrent imprisonment terms, caning as per statutes, compensation, rehabilitative counselling and police supervision).

  • 17 Nov 2025

    VIKNSHPRAN A/L BATU MALAI

    Citation
    AC-83D-1448-11/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    AC-83D-1448-11/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Conviction is valid because the accused pleaded guilty voluntarily and with understanding via a Tamil interpreter and admitted facts; given the weights (0.78g heroin and 1.63g monoacetylmorphines) and that both items were from the same seized package constituting one transaction, concurrent sentences are appropriate; a custodial sentence of 16 months from date of arrest for each count (to run concurrently) falls within statutory limits and properly balances mitigating factors against public interest in deterring drug offences.

  • 22 Jul 2025

    AZAHAR BIN OSMAN

    Citation
    KA-45A-22-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-45A-22-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Court held that notwithstanding the accused's guilty pleas and mitigation, the gravity of multiple offences involving four different dangerous drugs, public interest and deterrence required substantial custodial sentences; imposed 11 years imprisonment for each of the three counts punishable under s39A(2) and 3 years imprisonment for each of the three counts under s39A(1) to run concurrently from date of arrest, and no whipping ordered due to age; sentences were not manifestly excessive.

  • 20 Jul 2025

    [ ] FADHLI BIN YUSOFF

    Citation
    DA-45A-42-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    DA-45A-42-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Court accepted the accused's voluntary early guilty plea and applied a one-third reduction from the custodial range the court would have imposed if convicted after trial (9–10 years for first count), resulting in 6 years 6 months imprisonment and ten strokes under Section 39A(2) for the heroin count; imposed 6 months imprisonment for the methamphetamine count under Section 12(3), to run concurrently from date of arrest (3.6.2024). Court held it could not go below statutory minima and balanced mitigation against public interest and deterrence.

  • 7 Feb 2025

    MUHAMAT FAIRUS BIN MAT SAIRI

    Citation
    BA-41H-33-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-41H-33-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court held the magistrate did not err: the magistrate properly applied the One Transaction Rule and Totality Principle to order the two magistrate sentences to run concurrently with each other but separately from the Sessions Court sentence because the offences were of different character and lacked the requisite proximity; the aggregate sentence (six years) was not manifestly wrong and the appeals were dismissed.