JEEJI TING KIM LEONG v Pendakwa Raya

q-05m-302-08-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 20 October 2024 • Q-05(M)-302-08/2023 • 7 min read

1 cases cited (0 SG, 1 foreign)

Outcome

We therefore allow the appeals on sentence. We set aside the death sentences imposed by the High Court and sentenced each appellant to 35 years of imprisonment from the date of arrest.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (q-05m-302-08-2023). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

The appeals concerned only the sentence imposed by the High Court. The convictions for murder under Section 300(c) read with Section 34 of the Penal Code were not challenged. The High Court had imposed the death penalty on both appellants. • The appellants, Jeeji Ting Kim Leong and Syahadan bin Othman Sabang, planned to rob an elderly woman (the deceased) who lived with her senile mother. • The deceased was found dead with her hands and legs tied. The cause of death was traumatic asphyxia and smothering. • Forensic evidence showed Syahadan’s DNA under the deceased’s fingernails. • Both appellants led police to the deceased’s stolen belongings. • The High Court found: o Syahadan inflicted the fatal injuries. o Jeeji shared a common intention and restrained the deceased. • The High Court held the case involved “special reasons” justifying the death penalty. • The appellants sought to set aside the death sentences, arguing for imprisonment instead. • The DPP supported maintaining the seriousness of the offence but stated that if the court were inclined to substitute imprisonment, a term of 35 years + 15 strokes was appropriate. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that it may revise a sentence only if it is: • Manifestly excessive or inadequate, or • Based on a wrong application of sentencing principles. The court also emphasised the new discretion introduced by the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, which amended Section 302 Penal Code to allow either death or a sentence of 30–40 years’ imprisonment plus whipping. The Court of Appeal held that the death penalty was not warranted because: • The murder was not premeditated. • The intent was robbery, not killing. • The fatal act occurred while restraining the victim. • Although serious, the violence used was not exceptionally brutal. • Sentencing must be based on principle, not public outrage. • A lengthy prison sentence would still meet the goals of deterrence and public protection. The court emphasised that the death penalty should be reserved for the most extreme cases, and this was not such a case. The Court of Appeal: • Allowed the appeals on sentence. • Set aside the death penalty. • Substituted it with:- 35 years’ imprisonment each (from date of arrest) 15 strokes of the cane each

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure

Judges (3)

Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim Coram Alwi bin Abdul Wahab Coram Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan Delivered

Counsel (4)

Attorney General's Chambers Firm Hani Iryani Ling & Lateng Firm Louis Jarau Counsel Appellant Mohd. Fuad bin Abdul Aziz Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Jeeji Ting Kim Leong Appellant

Statutes Cited

Penal Code (Cap 574)

Cases Cited (1)

MY (1)

[2010] 8 CLJ 257

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (q-05m-302-08-2023)