Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Whipping as corporal punishment

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

MOHD HELMI ANUAR BIN MOHD KASSIM PEGUAM PEMERHATI Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (SUHAKAM) AMICUS CURIAE Collin Arvind Andrew

Citation

07-23-11/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

W
Case number

07-23-11/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Applicants met a limited r 137 threshold because the factual substratum (Zaidi's death) was unavailable at resentencing, but they failed to prove a clear constitutional transgression: no reliable medical causal link between whipping and death was shown, statutory safeguards and procedural limits render whipping not violative of Art 5 or Art 8, and the gender exemption does not breach Art 8(2); therefore all review applications dismissed.
11 Nov 2024

Mahathir Bin Usman [ ]

Citation

S-05(M)-508-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

S-05(M)-508-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Conviction was affirmed on evidence and statutory presumption; pursuant to the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 which vests sentencing discretion, and with the prosecution's agreement, the Court set aside the death sentence and substituted it with life imprisonment for thirty years from date of arrest and twelve strokes of whipping based on the totality of evidence, sentencing factors pleaded and statutory framework.
29 Jul 2021

AB - 42S - 15 - 09/2020 & AB - 42H - 6 - 09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

AB - 42S - 15 - 09/2020 & AB - 42H - 6 - 09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB - 42S - 15 - 09/2020 & AB - 42H - 6 - 09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 39C(1) DDA does not make whipping mandatory; the phrase 'shall also be punished' confers judicial discretion to impose whipping only if facts and circumstances justify it. The Sessions Court erred by relying on unrelated prior convictions and imposed whipping without adequate reasons. Conviction is affirmed but the whipping is set aside and imprisonment reduced to the statutory minimum of five years.
24 Feb 2021

GUNASILAN A/L RAMAN (I/C NO.: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

JB-42S-3-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42S-3-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal against sentence was dismissed and the trial court's sentences were affirmed because the appellant failed to adduce mitigating factors at trial or on appeal, the trial judge properly exercised sentencing discretion by prioritising public interest and deterrence in light of the offences and evidence, and there was no demonstrable error warranting appellate interference.

Malaysia Case Law

MOHD HELMI ANUAR BIN MOHD KASSIM PEGUAM PEMERHATI Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (SUHAKAM) AMICUS CURIAE Collin Arvind Andrew

Mahathir Bin Usman [ ]

AB - 42S - 15 - 09/2020 & AB - 42H - 6 - 09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

GUNASILAN A/L RAMAN (I/C NO.: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR