Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sexual offences against children act 2017

Legal area

Court

23 Apr 2026

MOHAMMAD IRWAN BIN KAIROMAN

Citation

JB-42JSKH-8-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42JSKH-8-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred in law and fact by ordering concurrent sentences for two distinct rapes committed on separate dates and places; 8 years was manifestly inadequate for rape of a minor, therefore each offence attracts 12 years' imprisonment and the sentences must run consecutively while ancillary orders under the Sexual Offences Against Children Act remain.
20 Apr 2026

MOHAMMAD BIN MAHAT

Citation

WA-42JSKS-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42JSKS-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court found no error in trial judge's assessment: SP5 was credible and SP4 provided independent supporting eyewitness evidence; CIC recording and documentary and s112 evidence further supported prosecution; therefore convictions were safe. Sentences of 12 years per count (to run separately where facts distinct) and additional punishments under s16 were within statutory limits and did not offend totality principle; appeal dismissed.
11 Mar 2026

AHNAF AFIQ BIN SHAIRUL BAZRI

Citation

JB-42LB(A)-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

JB-42LB(A)-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court erred in law and fact by misapplying s114(g) and incorrectly treating minor discrepancies as material; the prosecution established the elements of s14(a) SOACA 2017 by the victim's credible testimony corroborated by an eyewitness and contemporaneous complaint to her mother; the acquittal was set aside, the accused convicted as charged and appropriately sentenced under SOACA 2017.
11 Mar 2026

AHNAF AFIQ BIN SHAIRUL BAZRI

Citation

JB-42LB(A)-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

JB-42LB(A)-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the Sessions Court erred in law and fact by misapplying s114(g) and failing to properly assess the prosecution evidence; the victim's clear uncorroborated testimony was admissible and sufficient under ss17-18 SOACA 2017 to establish touching for sexual purposes, warranting conviction under s14(a); appellate intervention was justified due to errors in the Sessions Court's reasoning.
12 Jan 2026

MOHAMMAD NOOR FAZLIEY AFANDI BIN ZAMRI

Citation

DJ-62JSK-2-01/2026 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DJ-62JSK-2-01/2026 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Accused convicted on plea; after considering mitigation (guilty plea, young accused, no prior record) and aggravation (victim aged 13, deception, public interest), the court imposed a custodial sentence of 7 years and three strokes of the cane, plus counselling and two years police supervision, as proportionate under section 376(1) Penal Code.
17 Dec 2025

TEO YI HONG

Citation

JB-42JSKS-5-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42JSKS-5-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no error in the Sessions Court's assessment of credibility and facts, upheld the victim's evidence (permissible to convict on uncorroborated child evidence under Act 792), concluded the appellant's defence was a bare denial insufficient to raise reasonable doubt, and held the sentence was within the permissible discretionary range; therefore the appeal and the prosecution's cross-appeal on sentence were dismissed and the conviction and sentence affirmed.
4 Nov 2025

MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN

Citation

JB-42JSKH-6-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42JSKH-6-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the sentences were properly imposed to run consecutively because the offences were distinct in time and charged in separate cases; the one transaction rule did not apply; the aggregate sentence of 20 years imprisonment and 13 strokes was not manifestly excessive, was proportionate given the number and nature of offences under SOACA 2017 and justified by deterrence and public interest; appellate intervention was unwarranted and the appeal was dismissed.
4 Nov 2025

MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN

Citation

JB-42JSKH-4-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42JSKH-4-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the offences were distinct in time across multiple months and therefore the one transaction rule did not apply; consecutive sentences were appropriate; the sentence of 4 years and one stroke per charge (total 20 years and 13 strokes) was not manifestly excessive, met deterrence and public interest objectives, and did not breach the totality principle given statutory maxima.
4 Nov 2025

MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN

Citation

JB-42JSKH-3-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42JSKH-3-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed: the High Court held the offences were distinct in time and fact across five cases so the one transaction rule did not apply; the trial judge did not err in principle and the cumulative sentence of 20 years imprisonment and 13 strokes was not manifestly excessive given statutory maxima, the nature of the offences, and the need for deterrence and public protection.
4 Nov 2025

MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN

Citation

JB-42JSKH-5-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42JSKH-5-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Offences were distinct in time across five separate cases therefore the one transaction rule did not apply; the trial judge did not err in principle or exercise of discretion; the cumulative sentence (20 years imprisonment and 13 strokes) is not manifestly excessive given statutory maxima, seriousness of offences, need for deterrence and public interest; appeal dismissed.