Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 233 communications and multimedia act 1998

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2025

Aliff Syukri bin Kamarzaman

Citation

BK-63-14-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK-63-14-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Although the prosecution established a prima facie case that the accused owned and administered the Instagram account and that the videos were indecent under MCMC/JAKIM guidelines (and that intention to annoy could be inferred), the court was bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Heidy Quah holding that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in s.233 CMA are unconstitutional; consequently the prosecution could not be maintained under that provision and the accused was acquitted and discharged.
27 Aug 2025

Aliff Syukri bin Kamarzaman

Citation

BK-63-12-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK-63-12-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Although the prosecution established a prima facie case and the rebuttable presumption under s.114A pointed to the accused as publisher, the Court was bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Heidy Quah that the impugned words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in s.233 are unconstitutional; accordingly the prosecution could not be maintained and the accused was acquitted and discharged.
27 Aug 2025

Aliff Syukri bin Kamarzaman

Citation

BK-63-13-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK-63-13-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found prosecution had established prima facie that the accused was the owner/administrator of the Instagram account and had uploaded the four videos, and that the videos could be classified as sumbang based on MCMC and JAKIM analyses and contextual factors; however the court was bound by the Court of Appeal decision striking down the criminalisation of expression based on the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in s.233, and therefore the prosecution could not be maintained, resulting in acquittal and discharge of the accused.
27 Aug 2025

Aliff Syukri bin Kamarzaman

Citation

BK-63-11-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK-63-11-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Although the prosecution established a prima facie case and the rebuttable presumption under s.114A supported imputing publication to the accused, the court was bound by the Court of Appeal decision declaring the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in s.233 unconstitutional; accordingly the offence could not be sustained and the accused was acquitted and discharged.
16 Oct 2023

SHARIL BIN MOHD SARIF

Citation

WA-62CY-9-05/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-62CY-9-05/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because the psychiatric evidence established that at the time of the alleged postings the accused was legally unsound of mind (schizophrenia), incapable of knowing the nature and wrongness of his acts and therefore lacked the requisite intent under s.233(1)(a); accordingly the accused was not called to answer and was discharged and acquitted.
4 Oct 2022

ZULKIFLI BIN ARIFFIN

Citation

BK-63-10-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK-63-10-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Balancing public interest and the need for deterrence against significant mitigating factors (immediate guilty plea, cooperation, remorse, deletion of material and clean record), the accused was convicted under s.233(1)(a) CMA and sentenced to a fine of RM30,000, default 6 months imprisonment; a custodial sentence was unnecessary given the mitigating circumstances but a substantial fine is required to reflect the gravity and deterrent purpose of the law.
21 Jun 2022

SARAJUN HODA BIN ABDUL HASSAN

Citation

AB-62CY-2-08/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AB-62CY-2-08/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Applicant failed to discharge the burden to show sections 233(1)(a) and 233(3) unconstitutional; the provisions are sufficiently clear, not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, are a reasonable and proportionate restriction within Article 10(2)(a) to protect public order and morals, there is no evidence of arbitrary enforcement, and therefore the referral and stay applications are dismissed and criminal proceedings continue.

Malaysia Case Law

Aliff Syukri bin Kamarzaman

Aliff Syukri bin Kamarzaman

Aliff Syukri bin Kamarzaman

Aliff Syukri bin Kamarzaman

SHARIL BIN MOHD SARIF

ZULKIFLI BIN ARIFFIN

SARAJUN HODA BIN ABDUL HASSAN