Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Freedom of speech

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2026

Kerajaan Malaysia Heidy Quah Gaik Li PENCELAH Suruhanjaya Komunikasi Dan Multimedia Malaysia (MCMC), Cyberjaya AMICUS CURIE 1. ) Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) 2. ) Clooney Foundation For Justice (CFJ) 3. ) The International Bar Association

Citation

01(f)-44-11/2025(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-44-11/2025(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Federal Court reversed the Court of Appeal and held that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in s233(1)(a) CMA are not unconstitutional. The court reasoned that art 10(1)(a) does not protect communications whose dominant purpose is to harm, annoy, abuse, threaten or harass; art 4(2) limits review of Parliament's assessment but courts retain power to decide whether a law falls within the permitted restrictions; s233(1)(a) targets misuse of network facilities and is saved by construing the provision to require a clear mens rea (dominant intent to annoy/abuse/threaten/harass), and the prosecution…
18 Oct 2024

1. ) MUHAMMAD AL NIJAM BIN MD YUSOF 2. ) MUHAMMAD NOOR AZROY BIN MD SHARIF 3. ) MUHAMMAD ZAHIR BIN MD YUSOF

Citation

MC-83-162-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-83-162-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case for offences under s504 and s332 because (a) the words complained of were within protected expression and did not demonstrate intent to provoke a breach of peace, (b) the investigating officer's dual role created reasonable suspicion of bias undermining the investigation into s504, and (c) identification evidence was inconsistent and injuries were minor, leaving reasonable doubt as to which accused caused the harm; accordingly all accused were acquitted and discharged at the end of the prosecution's case.
18 Oct 2024

MUHAMMAD ROZAIMI BIN HASIM

Citation

MC-83-161-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-83-161-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on both counts: for s.504 there was no evidence the accused's words objectively amounted to an intentional insult likely to provoke breach of the peace and the statement fell within protected expression; for s.332 the identification evidence was unreliable, medical injuries were minor and not clearly attributable to the accused, and there was reasonable apprehension of bias in investigation; accordingly all accused were acquitted and discharged at the end of the prosecution's case.
30 Nov 2023

ARUNAKIRINATHAN A/L THILLAINATHAN

Citation

AA-42CY-3-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42CY-3-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the prosecution proved all elements of s233(1)(a) CMA 1998 and s504 Penal Code: s114A supported the inference that the appellant owned and published the live video, the content was offensive and had tendency to annoy and to provoke breach of the peace, the appellant's defence was mere denial and insufficient; the conviction was therefore upheld; the prosecution's appeal against sentence succeeded because the trial court failed adequately to consider the public interest and gravity of racially and religiously sensitive online publications, and the sentences were increased a…
5 Sept 2023

SHARIFFA SABRINA BINTI SYED AKIL

Citation

CB-42(Ors)-1-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

Ors
Case number

CB-42(Ors)-1-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the prosecution failed to satisfy the three‑part test for a pre‑emptive gag order; the Sessions Court correctly found no real and substantial risk of prejudice to the fairness of trial, adequate alternative remedies existed, and the statements did not pertain to specific witnesses or exhibits such as to warrant prior restraint; the High Court will not interfere with that exercise of discretion.
9 May 2023

Kerajaan Negeri Pahang SHARIFFA SABRINA BINTI SYED AKIL

Citation

CB-21CY-5-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-21CY-5-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to strike out was dismissed because the pleadings on their face disclose a reasonable cause of action and disputed issues of fact and law (truth, reference, malice, fair comment and reputation of the State) require full trial; additionally the State has statutory locus to sue under Act 359, so the claim is not plainly unsustainable.

Malaysia Case Law

Kerajaan Malaysia Heidy Quah Gaik Li PENCELAH Suruhanjaya Komunikasi Dan Multimedia Malaysia (MCMC), Cyberjaya AMICUS CURIE 1. ) Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) 2. ) Clooney Foundation For Justice (CFJ) 3. ) The International Bar Association

1. ) MUHAMMAD AL NIJAM BIN MD YUSOF 2. ) MUHAMMAD NOOR AZROY BIN MD SHARIF 3. ) MUHAMMAD ZAHIR BIN MD YUSOF

MUHAMMAD ROZAIMI BIN HASIM

ARUNAKIRINATHAN A/L THILLAINATHAN

SHARIFFA SABRINA BINTI SYED AKIL

Kerajaan Negeri Pahang SHARIFFA SABRINA BINTI SYED AKIL