Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

One‑transaction rule

Legal area

Court

19 Jul 2024

TENGKU IZWAN SHAH BIN TENGKU AZMAN

Citation

AA-62RS-35-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-62RS-35-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

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.
27 Mar 2024

LUKMAN HAKIM BIN HUSIN

Citation

AA-42JSKH-14-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42JSKH-14-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences because the three offences occurred on distinct dates with approximately 24-hour breaks, failing the proximity in time element of the one-transaction rule; the sentencing judge considered mitigation and aggravating factors including position of trust and properly exercised discretion; consecutive sentences are justified for deterrence and protection of vulnerable victims, so the appeal is dismissed and the original sentences are affirmed.
21 Nov 2022

MURLITHARAN A/L VYRAPERUMAL

Citation

BA-62JS-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62JS-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court accepted accused's guilty pleas, considered mitigation and prosecution's aggravation including victim impact, applied public interest and deterrence principles and the one-transaction/totality rule; concluded both offences arose in the same transaction so sentences should run concurrently from date of arrest, and fixed punishment at 7 years imprisonment and 2 strokes for s.377C and 5 years imprisonment and 1 stroke for s.392, both to commence 30.11.2020.
17 Feb 2021

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

Citation

JB-41H-71-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-41H-71-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the magistrate's sentencing exercise: the magistrate correctly balanced mitigation from early guilty pleas and personal circumstances against public interest, repeat offending and prior conviction; s.292 CCrP grants discretion as exercised and there was no error of law or manifest unreasonableness in ordering the sentences to run separately as imposed; appeal is dismissed.
17 Feb 2021

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

Citation

JB-41H-75-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-41H-75-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no error in the Magistrate's exercise of sentencing discretion including the application of s.292; the Magistrate properly balanced early guilty pleas and personal mitigation against public interest and repetitive offending, and therefore the sentences and the direction that they run separately (not concurrently) were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.
15 Oct 2020

ZAINAL BIN JIDON (NO. KP : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

Citation

JB-41H-30-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-41H-30-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Offences were distinct transactions each causing separate loss; therefore sentences should remain consecutive but the appellate court exercised discretion to reduce the term for each conviction from three years to two years while retaining one stroke of sebatan per conviction; restitution to each victim in the amounts obtained was ordered and enforceable under Section 426 CrPC.
23 Oct 2019

PENDAKWARAYA SULAIMAN BIN SAAD

Citation

AJ-83D-838-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AJ-83D-838-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The magistrate held that the defendant's guilty plea was voluntary and thus barred appeal against conviction; sentencing discretion under s.292 CPC permits ordering the 5-month term to commence after the existing sentence where offences are not one transaction; given the seriousness of drug offences and public interest a 5-month imprisonment and two-year supervision under s.38B were appropriate and justified, and the plea only mitigated but did not negate the need for a consecutive custodial sentence.

Malaysia Case Law

TENGKU IZWAN SHAH BIN TENGKU AZMAN

LUKMAN HAKIM BIN HUSIN

MURLITHARAN A/L VYRAPERUMAL

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

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

ZAINAL BIN JIDON (NO. KP : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

PENDAKWARAYA SULAIMAN BIN SAAD