Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE— SENTENCING— HARSH PENALTIES IN VIOLENT CRIMES: A LEGAL EXAMINATION OF SENTENCING STANDARDS

ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIO

Two accused individuals received heavy sentences for their involvement in violent crimes during a home invasion. The primary accused was sentenced to 22 years in prison and 12 strokes of the rotan for gang robbery with murder, while the second accused received 12 years and ten strokes for voluntarily causing harm.

KEY LEGAL ISSUES

  • Consecutive Sentences: The appropriateness of ordering the jail sentences to run consecutively, given that the offences were committed against different victims during the same criminal act.
  • Impact of Long Sentences: The consideration of public interest in imposing long jail terms, which may compromise the accused’s prospects for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
  • Proportionality of Sentences: Whether the combined sentences of imprisonment and whipping are commensurate with the violent nature of the crimes.

LAWS & LEGAL PRINCIPLES

  • S.183A Criminal Procedure Code: This section allows for a victim impact statement to be made before sentencing, providing the court insights into the emotional and physical impact on the victims or their families.
  • Kidnapping Act 1961: Outlines severe penalties for abduction and wrongful restraint, reflecting the serious nature of these crimes and the intent of the law to serve as a deterrent.
  • Sentencing Guidelines: For the primary charge, the appellants faced a potential death sentence or up to 30 years in prison along with mandatory whipping. The secondary charge carried a penalty of up to 20 years and additional whipping.

APPLICATION TO SCENARIO

  • The crimes occurred during a planned home invasion in Bintulu in May 2014.
  • The court noted that the appellants, along with accomplices still at large, prepared a week in advance, employing disguises and weapons to execute the robbery.
  • The male victim was murdered when he responded to his wife’s screams, who was also injured in the ordeal.
  • Despite their guilty pleas, the court determined that the severity of the crimes warranted stringent sentences to serve as a deterrent, especially considering the premeditated and violent nature of the attack.

REFERENCE CASES

  • PP v Mok Chin Fan & Ors [2015] 6 MLJ 857
  • S Samdaran a/l Sivasamy v PP [2015] 3 MLJ 391
  • PP v Bachik Abdul Rahman [2004] 2 MLJ 534; [2004] 3 AMR 429; [2004] 2 CLJ 572
  • Gek Sing Kaliappan v PP [1999] 6 MLJ 641
  • PP v Jessica Lim Lu Ping & Anor [2004] AMR 239
  • Prabath Sinnathamby & Anor v PP [2013] 1 CLJ 873
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us