Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Whipping

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2025

SHAWN COLIN DOSS A/L ARPUTHAN DOSS

Citation

BA-42H-15-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42H-15-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appellate court found no error in the exercise of sentencing discretion by the Sessions Judges; the sentences were within lawful discretionary limits, appropriately balanced public interest and mitigating factors, and consecutive terms were justified because the offences involved different times, places and victims; appellant's request for reduction was refused.
15 Dec 2025

SHAWN COLIN DOSS A/L ARPUTHAN DOSS

Citation

BA-42H-16-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42H-16-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court refused to interfere because the Sessions Courts exercised sentencing discretion within lawful bounds, considered public interest, appellant's background and plea, and the offences were distinct in time, place and victims so consecutive sentences were appropriate; no legal error or manifest excess was shown.
6 Nov 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHAMMAD SALAM

Citation

WA-45A-56-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-56-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Given the admitted facts, evidence and sentencing principles, the Court convicted on the charges and imposed 30 years imprisonment and 10 strokes for possession of 280.9g cannabis (alternative charge under s6/39A(2)), 6 years imprisonment and 10 strokes for possession of 77.17g cannabis (s6/39A(2)), and 6 months imprisonment for possession of 1.12g methamphetamine (s12(2)/12(3)); sentences commence from date of arrest and concurrent running was rejected based on the factual circumstances and seriousness of offences.
4 Nov 2025

MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN

Citation

JB-42JSKH-2-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42JSKH-2-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge correctly found the offences were distinct in time so the one transaction rule did not apply; the sentences imposed were not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, and the aggregate sentence did not breach the totality principle given statutory maxima and the need for deterrence.
15 Oct 2025

ANNUAR BIN JALIE

Citation

JA-42H-1-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-42H-1-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred in principle by failing to apply the Abdullah Ang approach (determine sentence after trial then apply a 1/4–1/3 discount for guilty plea); applying that principle and weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, the appropriate sentence is four years and six months' imprisonment from date of arrest with three strokes of whipping affirmed.
20 Jul 2025

[ ] FADHLI BIN YUSOFF

Citation

DA-45A-42-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-45A-42-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court accepted the accused's voluntary early guilty plea and applied a one-third reduction from the custodial range the court would have imposed if convicted after trial (9–10 years for first count), resulting in 6 years 6 months imprisonment and ten strokes under Section 39A(2) for the heroin count; imposed 6 months imprisonment for the methamphetamine count under Section 12(3), to run concurrently from date of arrest (3.6.2024). Court held it could not go below statutory minima and balanced mitigation against public interest and deterrence.
9 Jul 2025

SHAWN COLIN DOSS A/L ARPUTHAN DOSS

Citation

BA-62RS-28-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62RS-28-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found the offence serious (daytime robbery in a public pharmacy with a parang) warranting significant punishment; guilty plea and remorse were mitigating but insufficient to outweigh public interest. One transaction rule did not apply as offences occurred on different dates/occasions; applying Sections 282 and 292 CPC and totality principle the court ordered imprisonment of 3 years and 1 stroke of whipping, to commence upon conclusion of the accused's sentence in case no. BA-62RS-30-05/2025.
18 Apr 2025

NOOR AZAM BIN MAT SAAD

Citation

BA-62D-59-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62D-59-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the statutory minimum for s.39C(1)(B) DDA and the seriousness of drug offences, but having weighed mitigation and the public interest, the court imposed the minimum five-year term with whipping and supervision; because the DDA offence was a distinct transaction from the existing s.412 PC conviction, the new sentence was ordered to commence upon conclusion of the current sentence.
17 Apr 2025

MUHAMMAD DZULKHAIR BIN BESTAMAM

Citation

BA-62D-113-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62D-113-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held that although a guilty plea attracts mitigation, it does not permit reduction below the statutory minimum prescribed by s39C(1) where the offender has the requisite prior convictions; the defendant's prolonged delay in pleading guilty negated entitlement to earlier-start credit, therefore the mandatory minimum sentence (5 years) applied, with one stroke of the cane and two years' supervision, commencing 17-4-2025.
20 Feb 2025

NOORMAN SHAH BIN JAMAL

Citation

AB-42S-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-42S-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court sentence because the Sessions Court properly followed procedure, the appellant pleaded guilty and admitted facts and exhibits, the appellant had multiple prior convictions of a similar nature which outweighed mitigation, and there was no misdirection in exercising sentencing discretion; public interest and deterrence justified the imposed term.