Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consecutive versus concurrent sentences

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2025

FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

Citation

AC-62K-5-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AC-62K-5-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the prolonged period of offending across separate transactions involving different victims and significant monetary losses with no restitution, the court found the offences serious and deserving of substantial punishment; mitigation (guilty plea, health, family circumstances) was insufficient to warrant concurrency or significant discount, therefore imposed two years' imprisonment, two strokes and RM10,000 fine per count with imprisonment in default, sentences to run consecutively for each of the nine counts.
22 Dec 2025

FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

Citation

AC-62K-4-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AC-62K-4-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the prolonged period of offending (2012–2019), the very large aggregate losses running into millions with victims unrecompensed, the separate transactions and victims across nine counts, and absence of efforts to restitute victims, the court imposed substantive individual sentences for each count: two years' imprisonment, two strokes and RM10,000 fine (or six months default) per count; the custodial terms to run consecutively. Health mitigation reduced extent of corporal punishment but did not justify concurrent or wholly lenient sentences.
9 Oct 2025

KHALID REDZA BIN SHUIB

Citation

NA-45B-7-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-45B-7-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the accused's guilty pleas followed accepted written representations, the mitigating value of those pleas was reduced; given serious aggravating factors—abuse of vulnerable victims, concealment of bodies—and public interest in deterrence, the court imposed sentences within established range for section 304(a) (15–20 years) and ordered consecutive terms because the one transaction test was not satisfied between the two offences.
9 Apr 2025

[ ] MOHD RAFIQ BIN RASEDI

Citation

DJ-62JSK-10-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DJ-62JSK-10-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the gravity, repetition and aggravating relationship (stepfather to victim), the court ordered 10 years imprisonment and 12 strokes for each of three rape offences, with those sentences to run consecutively; the sentences comply with statutory minima and the totality principle and do not produce a crushing effect; total imprisonment is 30 years and total strokes 36 though only 24 strokes may be executed under procedure limits.
17 Feb 2021

NORAZMAN AZIM BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

Citation

JB-41H-70-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-41H-70-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no error in the magistrate's exercise of sentencing discretion. Applying s.292 CPC, one transaction and totality principles, and considering the appellant's repeated housebreaking offences, past conviction and the need to protect the public, the magistrate properly weighed mitigation from the guilty pleas and was entitled to order the sentences to run separately; the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

KHALID REDZA BIN SHUIB

[ ] MOHD RAFIQ BIN RASEDI

NORAZMAN AZIM BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)