Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Rape of minor

  • 9 Apr 2025

    [ ] MOHD RAFIQ BIN RASEDI

    Citation
    DJ-62JSK-10-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    DJ-62JSK-10-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Given the gravity, repetition and aggravating relationship (stepfather to victim), the court ordered 10 years imprisonment and 12 strokes for each of three rape offences, with those sentences to run consecutively; the sentences comply with statutory minima and the totality principle and do not produce a crushing effect; total imprisonment is 30 years and total strokes 36 though only 24 strokes may be executed under procedure limits.

  • 29 Jul 2024

    [ ] AHMAD SHAHIRUL BIN ALI

    Citation
    DA-42JSKH-14-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    DA-42JSKH-14-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court allowed the prosecution's appeal against sentence, holding the original sentence was manifestly inadequate given the seriousness of rape of a 12-year-old relative and the need to prioritize public interest and deterrence; the court increased imprisonment to 12 years from date of arrest and increased whipping to five strokes.

  • 21 Jul 2022

    [ ] ASHLEY ROLAND ROBERN

    Citation
    BL-42JSKH-6-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BL-42JSKH-6-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Sessions Court's sentence of 5 years per count was inadequate given the defendant raped a 15-year-old victim on three separate occasions; applying principles of proportionality, denunciation and public interest, the High Court increased the custodial term to 7 years imprisonment for each count to run concurrently while maintaining one stroke of the cane per count.

  • 11 May 2022

    Mansor Bin Endut [ ]

    Citation
    BL-42JSKH-6-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BL-42JSKH-6-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court found the Sessions Court applied correct sentencing principles, balanced mitigation and public interest, and imposed sentences proportionate to the gravity of offences (incest and sexual intercourse with a 16‑year‑old); there was no error in principle and therefore the appeal against sentence was dismissed and the sentences upheld.