Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mandatory sentencing

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2025

1. ) WONG FOOK LOY 2. ) WIN MIN HLIANG 3. ) KAUNG MYAT PHYOE 4. ) LOONG CHAN YOW 5. ) CHAI CHOON FOO

Citation

JA-45A-38-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-45A-38-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court accepted guilty pleas and facts but, given the very large quantity of MDMA (7,982.05g), the paramount public interest and sentencing trends, the mitigation did not outweigh the need for deterrence; therefore imposed a substantial custodial term (12 years from date of arrest) and mandated 10 strokes for the selected count with additional concurrent terms for the ancillary counts, and ordered acquittal of co-accused where prosecution withdrew charges.
5 Jun 2025

ABDUL AZIM BIN MOHD YASIN

Citation

BJ-62-1-04/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BJ-62-1-04/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Sentence of 10 years' imprisonment from date of arrest and six strokes was lawful and appropriate because the offence under Section 9 Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971 is serious, the firearm was serviceable and carried in public, public interest and deterrence outweigh mitigating factors; guilty plea merited some discount but not sufficient to avoid a substantial custodial deterrent sentence.
18 Jul 2023

MUHAMAD FAISOL BIN NOR@NORDIN

Citation

KA-42H-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-42H-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the guilty plea was valid and unequivocal because the Sessions Court adequately explained the nature and consequences and the plea was made by the appellant himself; the amended charge and the chemical report were properly presented and served; the mandatory sentence under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (as read with Criminal Justice Act 1953) was correctly imposed; therefore there was no ground to disturb conviction or mandatory sentence and the appeal was dismissed.
30 Aug 2021

SAHRUL MAZLEE BIN MOHD KHALID (NO K/P: 760608-01-7225)

Citation

J-05(M)-633-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

J-05(M)-633-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the trial judge properly conducted the required maximum evaluation, accepted the arresting officer (SP8) as credible, found the appellant had actual possession and knowledge of the cannabis based on holding the bag and corroborating circumstantial evidence (similar slabs, personal effects, weighing/packing implements in the bedroom), that statutory presumption of trafficking applied because net weights exceeded the 200g threshold, and that these findings supported convictions on both counts; mandatory death under s39B(2) followed and the appeal was dismissed.
10 Mar 2021

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA GOH SOON TECK

Citation

BK – 620 – 08 – 05 - 2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK – 620 – 08 – 05 - 2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Accused admitted guilt and forensic evidence confirmed ingestion of amphetamine and methamphetamine; accused had three prior s.15(1)(a) convictions which triggered mandatory increased sentencing under s.39C(1) ADB 1952; court therefore had no discretion to impose less than the statutory minimum of five years imprisonment and whipping up to three strokes, allowed mitigation for early guilty plea but limited by prior convictions and public interest, and imposed a supervision order under s.38B ADB 1952 for three years.
15 Feb 2021

WOO WUI SEONG [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

J-05(M)-326-08/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

J-05(M)-326-08/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the prosecution proved actual possession beyond reasonable doubt by proximity, exhibits and witness evidence; non-production of NTT's s.112 statement did not justify an adverse inference under s.114(g) because there was no suppression and the prosecution's case was otherwise complete; once possession and statutory weight were proved the trial judge was required to invoke the s.37(da) presumption of trafficking which is rebuttable on the balance of probabilities; thus convictions and mandatory sentences were correctly entered and affirmed.
8 Sept 2020

1. ) TAZA BIN TARJI (NO. K/P: 930611-01-6337) 2. ) HERMAN (NO. PASPORT: A 9562313) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

J-05(M)-224-04/2018 DAN J-05(M)-233-04/2018 (MINORITY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT) (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

J-05(M)-224-04/2018 DAN J-05(M)-233-04/2018 (MINORITY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT) (Mahkamah Rayuan)

s.39B(2A) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 lists circumstances the court 'may have regard only to' when exercising sentencing discretion; the word 'may' preserves judicial discretion and the listed circumstances are matters of consideration not mandatory preconditions; ministerial statements cannot alter clear statutory language; when prosecution asserts absence of assistance under (d) it must lead evidence in a pre-sentencing hearing because that fact is within prosecution knowledge; in the absence of such evidence and where (a)–(c) are present the court may impose the alternative sentence; t…
1 Jul 2020

Shaiful Azmi bin Sabri

Citation

K-09(H)-44-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

H
Case number

K-09(H)-44-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Conviction was unsafe because the plea-taking process did not satisfy statutory and common-law requirements: the judge failed to ensure the accused unequivocally understood the nature and consequences of the guilty plea (including that life imprisonment equates to 30 years), the factual basis presented did not match the charge, and there was reasonable doubt whether the chemist's report had been properly re-served as required by s399(1) CPC; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the conviction is set aside with a retrial ordered.
20 Jan 2020

MUHAMAD RAFA'EK BIN K ABDUL SALAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

WA-42S-26-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42S-26-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the sessions court sentence because the appellant had the requisite prior convictions triggering mandatory application of section 39C DDA, and sentencing principles of deterrence and prevalence justified upholding the seven‑year term and one stroke of the rotan within the statutory range.