Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remand credit

Legal area

Court

28 Aug 2025

ONG CHIN LEE

Citation

AJ-83-271-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AJ-83-271-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Accused accepted guilty plea and, balancing mitigation (first offender status, guilty plea, personal and financial circumstances) against public interest and seriousness of dangerous driving, the Magistrate properly exercised sentencing discretion to impose a fine of RM5,000 with alternative imprisonment of 10 months; the court considered and accounted for six days of remand under s.282(d) CPC when assessing proportionality of sentence.
16 Apr 2024

[Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)] Miss Konthong Chuenchom

Citation

KA-45A-23-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-23-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the prosecution proved trafficking beyond reasonable doubt; the defence was a bare denial and failed to rebut the statutory presumption of possession and knowledge under section 37(d) ADB 1952. Considering the large quantity, foreign origin and deterrence, the court exercised discretion under Act 846 to impose life imprisonment (30 years) rather than death, and ordered the sentence to commence from the date of sentence (not arrest). No whipping ordered because the offender is female under section 289(a) CPC.
24 Nov 2023

[ ] NANTHA KUMAR A/L RAJENDRAN

Citation

WA-45JT-12-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45JT-12-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that remand/detention period must be taken into account when calculating sentence and therefore the sentence was correctly treated as commencing from the date of arrest; because the court had imposed the maximum statutory term, the Public Prosecutor's appeal against adequacy of sentence was dismissed.
24 Nov 2023

[ ] SIVANAMTHAM A/L GAUTHAMAN

Citation

WA-45JT-19-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45JT-19-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the remand period must be taken into account when fixing sentence; because the trial court had already imposed the maximum statutory term of three years and credited the period from arrest, there was no basis to increase the sentence and the Public Prosecutor's appeal against sentence was dismissed.
24 Nov 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] KUMAR A/L THILLAINATHEN

Citation

WA-45JT-5-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45JT-5-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that remand/detention prior to conviction must be credited when imposing sentence; having considered guilty plea and first offender status but noting public interest, the maximum statutory sentence under the alternative charge was imposed and the remand period was taken into account, therefore the Public Prosecutor's appeal against sentence was dismissed.
24 Nov 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] THIRUMAL RAJ

Citation

WA-45JT-8-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45JT-8-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the court was bound by precedent to take into account the period of detention/remand when computing the sentence start date; accordingly the sentence of three years imprisonment and fine were to run from the date of arrest (20 June 2021). The guilty plea and first‑offender status were acknowledged as mitigating but did not reduce the imposed maximum under the Act.
24 Nov 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TANASILAN A/L NAKETHIRAN

Citation

WA-45JT-7-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45JT-7-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the remand period must be taken into account when fixing the sentence; accordingly the maximum three‑year sentence imposed was ordered to run from the date of arrest (20 June 2021). The Public Prosecutor's appeal against sentence was dismissed.
24 Nov 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] JAYAPRAKASH A/L ARUMUGAM

Citation

WA-45JT-21-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45JT-21-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the period of remand must be taken into account when calculating sentence and therefore the sentence should be backdated to the date of arrest; given that the court had already imposed the statutory maximum sentence of three years, the Public Prosecutor's appeal for a harsher sentence was dismissed.
24 Nov 2023

[ ] LOGESWARAN A/L RAVINDRAN

Citation

WA-45JT-20-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45JT-20-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the remand period must be taken into account when imposing sentence and therefore the sentence as imposed by the High Court (three years imprisonment and a fine of RM4,000 in default one year) stands and is to be considered from the date of arrest (20 June 2021); the prosecution's appeal against the sentence is dismissed.
24 Nov 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] THINESH A/L MURUGAN

Citation

WA-45JT-15-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45JT-15-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal by the Public Prosecutor was dismissed because the trial court had already imposed the maximum statutory sentence (three years) and, following binding authorities, the period of remand from arrest must be credited; guilty plea and first offender status are mitigating factors but did not reduce the maximum sentence imposed.