Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Human trafficking

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2024

1. ) RINESHINI NAIDU A/P KALAICHELVAN 2. ) VIJIYAN RAO A/L SUBRAMANIAM

Citation

BL-61ATIP-6-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-61ATIP-6-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found beyond reasonable doubt that prosecution proved elements of trafficking under s13(a) Akta 670 (acquisition/retention and exploitation by abuse of vulnerability), that the victim suffered numerous recent and old injuries consistent with repeated assault (forensic expert evidence excluded accidental fall), that joint intent by husband and wife existed under s34, that s326 was not proven as weapon element lacked proof but s325 was proved, and that employer (T2) also guilty under s55B Immigration Act; accordingly convictions, statutory compensation and sentences were imposed.
4 Nov 2024

1. ) ITH EAMY 2. ) DIONG YEOU CHIN

Citation

BL-62ATIP-64-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-62ATIP-64-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that prosecution proved all statutory elements of trafficking under s.12 read with s.2 and that T1 and T2 jointly acquired and retained the victims for labour exploitation: victims were smuggled, worked without permits, had passports withheld, lived in degrading communal accommodation, suffered wage deductions, debt bondage and confinement, and were threatened and in one instance physically detained. Coercion existed in statutory forms (threat/physical restraint, scheme causing belief of harm, abuse of legal process). Joint intent inferred from collabor…
15 Jul 2024

1. ) TAN KE HUAT 2. ) ANANTHAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM 3. ) SURESH A/L P.ARJUNAN 4. ) EKO RAHMADANI 5. ) ERFANNI 6. ) MOHD JOHAN BIN MUSA 7. ) TUAH 8. ) SIPRIANUS NAHAK LUTAN 9. ) KLAU NOFRIANUS ERICK 10. ) SIVALINGAM A/L SUPPRAMANI

Citation

AA-45SOM-5-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-45SOM-5-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Balancing the gravity of organising and facilitating the smuggling of 35 migrants, the individual roles of OKT8 and OKT9 as principal organisers, their guilty pleas and mitigation, the court found the sentence of 54 months imprisonment from date of arrest appropriate and proportionate and therefore confirmed that sentence.
23 Jun 2023

SALMI BINTI A. RAHMAN

Citation

BL-42S-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-42S-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court allowed the appellant's appeals and quashed all convictions and sentences because the Sessions Court judge failed to perform the judicial duty of evaluating and considering the defence evidence and all evidence as required by section 182A(1) CrPC, amounting to a material misdirection (non-direction) that rendered the convictions unsafe.
12 Nov 2021

1. ) WONG CHEE KONG 2. ) LAM CHAI YIN PENDAKWARAYA

Citation

BA-42S-46-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42S-46-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the prosecution had established a prima facie case of trafficking for the purpose of exploitation/forced labour under Section 12 ATIPSOM based on cumulative evidence (withheld wages recharacterised as loans, passport retention, excessive hours, denial of leave, restricted communication and physical abuse); the trial judge properly assessed the defence and there was no legal or factual error warranting disturbance of the convictions or sentences, so convictions and sentences were affirmed.
2 Aug 2021

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA 1. ) JASPAL SINGH A/L HARBANS SINGH 2. ) KIREN KAUR SACHDEV A/P SANTOKH SINGH

Citation

BL-42(ORS)-2-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ORS
Case number

BL-42(ORS)-2-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt a prima facie case of trafficking under Sections 12 and 13(b) ATIPSOM—notably absence of coercion, lack of proven exploitation and evidence that the complainant acted voluntarily—while the evidence did establish a prima facie offence of causing hurt under Section 323 read with Section 34 Kanun Keseksaan, justifying the amended charge, conviction and sentence on that offence.
30 Jul 2021

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA SIEW CHUN HOE

Citation

BL-45SOM-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-45SOM-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 12‑month imprisonment from the date of arrest is within the statutory maximum under s26J and is a proportionate sentence after balancing deterrence and rehabilitation, taking into account the respondent's first offender status, lengthy remand custody and that only one migrant was involved; therefore the prosecution's appeal is dismissed.
15 Feb 2018

Ooi Chee Tiong

Citation

K-05(SH)-29-01/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

K-05(SH)-29-01/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court found prosecution proved both elements of s26J: appellant was the registered owner of vessel PSF 1857 (P23) and retained custody and control as evidenced by registration records, fuel purchase and landing declarations, expert inspection linking the vessel to PSF 1857 and physical modifications suitable for carrying hundreds, and migrant testimony that the vessel carried over 200 persons; appellant's documentary sale evidence and alibi failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction under s26J and sentence of 54 months imprisonment were therefore upheld.