17 Mar 2026
Court assessed that an appropriate sentence after a full trial would not exceed 10 years given the facts and mitigation; applying a one‑third reduction for the guilty plea and other mitigatory factors produced a sentence of 4 years imprisonment, with counselling during incarceration and two years police supervision on release.
11 Feb 2026
The High Court held the trial judge did not err in sentencing: placement of the appellant under police supervision pursuant to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 legitimately informed the judge's view that the appellant was not a true first offender; the trial judge properly balanced public interest and mitigation, had explained the possible penalties and the seven-year term (half of the 14-year maximum) with three strokes was within the lawful range and not excessive; therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
15 Oct 2025
The Sessions Court erred in principle by failing to apply the Abdullah Ang approach (determine sentence after trial then apply a 1/4–1/3 discount for guilty plea); applying that principle and weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, the appropriate sentence is four years and six months' imprisonment from date of arrest with three strokes of whipping affirmed.
7 Aug 2025
The court held that an eight-year imprisonment term from date of arrest is appropriate and proportionate: the offence's seriousness and need for deterrence warranted a substantial sentence but the defendant merited more than the ordinary guilty-plea discount, reducing the maximum 20-year term to 8 years.
9 Jan 2025
Court balanced aggravating evidence of repeated physical abuse with mitigating factors (age, first offender, remorse, ill-health, lack of proven intent to kill and failure of other carers to secure medical follow-up) and concluded a 10-year imprisonment from date of arrest (1 January 2021) adequately reflects punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation; longer term was unnecessary given facts and mitigation.
6 Jan 2025
Court balanced mitigating factors (early guilty pleas, first offences, personal circumstances) against the overriding public interest and need for deterrence in drug cases; having regard to the quantity (2.9g) and applicable legal principles, the appropriate and proportionate sentence is 48 months imprisonment from date of arrest.
23 Dec 2024
Defendant convicted under s43(1) APJ; court weighed mitigation (guilty plea, employment, family responsibility) against aggravation (illegal U‑turn across double white lines causing sudden hazard and the death of a motorcyclist) and concluded public interest and deterrence required a substantial fine; refusal to give meaningful discount for guilty plea due to seriousness and fatal outcome; sentence imposed RM10,000 fine or 12 months imprisonment and endorsement on driving licence as mandated by statute.
8 Dec 2024
Given the significant scale and value of the theft (RM22,167.67; 950 kg of cable), the extensive prior convictions of OKT1 (multiple similar offences within a short period), absence of effective mitigation and the need for public protection and deterrence, the court declined to afford a substantial guilty-plea discount and imposed immediate custodial sentences and fines as appropriate.
13 Nov 2024
The Court held the High Court erred by over-emphasising guilty pleas and failing to account for the statutory amendment, seriousness of migrant smuggling (including threat to security and reputation), public interest deterrence and sentencing trends; appellate intervention was justified and the sentences were increased to 8 years imprisonment for each respondent, to run from date of arrest, taking into account their ages.
19 Jul 2024
Because the accused committed two separate robberies on different dates and at different locations, the court treated them as distinct offences and, applying s292(1) CPC and relevant authorities, ordered the sentence for the present conviction to commence after the existing sentence and to run consecutively; the sentence imposed was within statutory limits and justified by public interest and seriousness of the offences.