HOME

ABSTRACT

Sentencing involves an order of punishment by a court on a defendant found guilty or pleaded guilty for violation of the criminal law. This is part of the criminal justice system. Generally, the criminal justice system is a complex social institution, which regulates potential, alleged and actual criminal activity within limits designed to protect people from wrongful treatment and wrongful conviction. The criminal justice system is a set of legal and social institutions for enforcing criminal law following a defined set of procedural rules and limitations. Child offenders are not excluded from this criminal justice system. Lack of discussion amongst the judges on how the judges derive the sentences given to child offenders. Globally, it is known that national legislation should treat child offenders differently from adult offenders. For child offenders in criminal justice, the process is known as the juvenile justice system. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to analyse whether the best interest of the child offender is taken into account in sentencing child offenders in Malaysia as compared to the international framework and the United Kingdom juvenile justice system.

ABSTRACT

This paper critically examines Malaysia's proposed Urban Renewal Act ('URA'), a legislative framework, presently at the Bill stage, designed to facilitate large-scale urban redevelopment, regeneration, and revitalisation across Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territories, which is currently at the Bill stage.^[1] While the Bill aims to modernise ageing infrastructure, address neglected developments, and promote sustainable urban growth, it has also sparked intense debate over property rights, due process, and governance. The study contextualises the URA within Malaysia's broader legal landscape, including the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ('LAA 1960'), the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 ('TCPA 1976'), and Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, highlighting key tensions around compulsory acquisition, compensation, and appeal mechanisms. Drawing on policy critiques from professional bodies such as the Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia ('PAM') and housing advocacy groups, the paper explores the Bill's strengths, weaknesses, and socio-political implications, particularly for low-income and marginalised communities. This paper further proposes integrating architects more substantively into decision-making structures to ensure redevelopment projects are not only legally sound but also socially equitable, culturally sensitive, and technically robust.

The apex court rules that transactions premised on gambling activities are against public policy and are illegal, null, and void.

A gambling debt is not legally enforceable in Malaysia on grounds of public policy, the Federal Court has ruled. In delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, Justice Nordin Hassan noted that the government had repeatedly and firmly voiced its stance against gambling in Parliament on grounds that the public derives no benefit from it.

Globally, there is an unfettered right of access to court proceedings by the public, which is consilient with the principle of open justice as it is regarded as an essential tenet of any justice system to guarantee public confidence, independence, and accountability in the administration of justice. In Malaysia, Section 15 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 states that all civil and criminal matters shall be deemed to be open and accessible to the public. Journalists are often keen to report on cases that are newsworthy and those that garners public interest wherein they act as an intermediary between the public and the courts.