24 Feb 2026
Accused was convicted on her guilty plea under Section 26A read with Section 34; court found the conduct (providing premises and services to facilitate smuggling of 24 migrants) sufficiently serious that the guilty plea did not justify a sentencing discount and imposed 10 years' imprisonment to run from 24 November 2024.
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.
3 Jan 2025
The Court held that the 8‑year sentence was not manifestly excessive given the appellants' roles as tekong and assistants in smuggling 29 migrants into Malaysia, the public interest and deterrence considerations, and consistent appellate precedent; the High Court's reference to the TIP Report did not prejudice appellants and was permissible contextual material, so the sentence was upheld.
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.
1 Jul 2024
The Court held the five‑year imprisonment imposed by the trial court was fair and appropriate: while public interest and deterrence warrant heavy sentences for migrant smuggling, the early guilty pleas and mitigating factors justified a substantial discount from the ten‑year benchmark that would likely have been imposed after trial; accordingly the appeal by the Public Prosecutor was dismissed and the existing sentences affirmed.
9 Dec 2021
Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case that the accused obtained a benefit from migrant smuggling under s.26D because there was no credible evidence linking the seized RM2,100 or any other funds to a benefit derived by the accused from the smuggling; the RM5,000 payment was shown to have been handed to a third party and there was insufficient evidence the accused received or retained any profit. Although the accused was present and had knowledge, absence of proof of actual benefit defeated the prosecution's case, warranting acquittal under s.180 CPC.
18 Jun 2020
Having accepted the guilty plea and applied sentencing principles including mitigation (first time offender, prompt plea, personal circumstances) and public interest, the court sentenced the accused to imprisonment for 2 years and 2 months from date of arrest; exercising discretion under section 36 ATIPSOM, the court declined forfeiture and ordered the vehicle returned to its registered owner while the seized mobile phone is retained by prosecution for further action.
17 Dec 2019
On the evidence of multiple witnesses, documentary exhibits and supervisory practice, the court found that the accused, acting as the receiving immigration officer, processed passport applications using Malaysian identities for Sri Lankan migrants, had knowledge or reason to believe the entries/exits were unlawful, and provided the requisite assistance to facilitate migrant smuggling under s.26A ATIPSOM; the defence denial failed to raise reasonable doubt, therefore conviction was proper.
26 Nov 2019
Given the defendant was a first offender who pleaded guilty and saved court resources, but the offence is serious and implicates public interest and national security, a custodial sentence of two years from the date of arrest (22.01.2019) is proportionate where only one migrant was involved; personal mitigation did not outweigh public interest in deterrence.
15 Feb 2018
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.