1.

0 Introduction on Jurisdiction on Criminal Courts

S.6 of CPC: In Malaysia, the Courts which administer criminal justice shall be those
constituted pursuant to the Constitution, or the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, or by the
Subordinate Courts Act 1948, or by any other existing law.

Federal Constitution: Special Court (A.182), FC, COA and HC.

CJA 1964: FC, COA and HC.

SCA 1948: Sessions Court and Magistrates Courts.

Any other law: Courts for Children (S.11 of Child Act 2001), Native Courts (S.3 of Native
Courts Enactment 1992 Sabah and Native Courts Ordinance 1992 Sarawak) and Syariah
Courts (S.40 of Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993).

1.1 Definition of Jurisdiction

Literally: Powers of the courts

Technically: Legal authority/power; range of judicial/administrative power

Even though the words ‘jurisdiction’ and ‘power’ are often used interchangeably, yet in fact
they are different and the courts have recognised the distinction between the two terms.

Hap Seng Plantations (River Estates) S/B v. Excess Interpoint S/B - The word
"jurisdiction" is used to denote the types of subject matter which the Court may deal with and
in relation to which it may exercise its powers. In other words, power comes with
jurisdiction.

Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v PP – Jurisdiction denotes the scope of authority over a
subject matter the court may deal with it. The court may then exercise its power in relation to
and pursuant to that jurisdiction. In other words, jurisdiction is the source of power.

1.2 Types of Jurisdiction

1. Local / Territorial Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction to try an offence committed in a particular

area.

2. Original Jurisdiction - Power to hear a case and sentence the case for a first time.

● Trial Jurisdiction – Power to hear case

● Sentencing Jurisdiction – Power to give punishment

3. Appellate Jurisdiction – Power of higher court to review decision of lower court

4. Co-ordinate Jurisdiction – Equal jurisdiction

2.0 Local / Territorial Jurisdiction

S. 121 of CPC: An offence shall be tried by a Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction it was committed. [GENERAL RULE]

Exception: S.122 – S.126 of CPC

S.122 of CPC

S.122 of CPC: An accused may be tried in the place where the act is done or where the
consequence ensues.

e.g. A is wounded within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of X and dies
(the consequence) within those of the Court of Y. The offence of culpable homicide
of A may be inquired into by the Court of either X or Y.

S.123 of CPC

S.123 of CPC: When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is
also an offence or which would be an offence if the person was capable of committing an
offence a charge of the first mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction either act was done.

e.g. A who charged with receiving/retaining stolen goods may be inquired into/tried
either by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the goods were stolen;
or by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the goods were at any
time dishonestly received/retained.

S.124 of CPC

S.124 (1) of CPC: For the offence of having escaped from custody, the accused may be tried
in the place where he escaped or where he was arrested after escaping. [For offence of
escaping from custody]

S.124 (2) of CPC: For the offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust,
the accused may be tried in the place where the property was received by the accused person,
or the offence was committed. [For offence of criminal misappropriation and criminal
breach of trust]

S.124 (3) of CPC: For the offence of stealing, the accused may be tried in the place where
such thing was stolen or was possessed by the thief, or by any person who receives or retains
the same knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen. [For offence of stealing]
S.125 of CPC

S.125 of CPC: If

(a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed;

(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another;

(c) where an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local
areas than one; or

(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,

it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

S.126 of CPC

S.126 of CPC: An offence committed while the offender is in the course of performing a
journey or voyage may be inquired into or tried by a Court through or into the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the offender or the person against whom or the thing in respect of which
the offence was committed passed in the course of that journey or voyage.

2.1 Lateral Transfer of the Case

A party to the case may apply for the case to be transfer to another court of coordinate
jurisdiction. The new court where the case to be transferred need not have local jurisdiction.
Just need to satisfy the requirement for transfer.

e.g. The offence was committed in Jasin. The prosecution may apply to transfer the case from
MC Jasin to MC Ayer Keroh for convenient of the witnesses. (If apply s.121, MC Ayer
Keroh has no local jurisdiction)

Subordinate Courts

S.99A of SCA: Every Sessions Court and Magistrates’ Court shall have the further powers
and jurisdiction set out in the Third Schedule.

Third Schedule of SCA, Para 3 (2): Power, on application or of its own motion, to transfer
any proceedings to another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction

S 104 of SCA: A Sessions Court Judge or a Magistrate shall have jurisdiction , disregarding
whether he has jurisdiction finally to hear and determine the same, to order any criminal
matter be transferred to any other Sessions Court or Magistrates’ Court which he thinks it has
jurisdiction to hear and determine the same in the interests of justice, and the same may be
continued in that other Court accordingly.
 Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to confer jurisdiction on any
court to which a proceeding is so transferred, if that court would not otherwise have
jurisdiction in respect thereof

High Courts

S.417 (1) – (3) CPC: High Court, may either on the report of the lower Court, or on the
application of the prosecution or the accused person, or on its own initiative, order the
transfer of the case to another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction in another jurisdiction in the
interests of justice.

Oh Keng Seng v PP – The High Court held that under S 417 of COC, the court has power to
transfer the case if it is in the interests of justice.

3.0 Local Jurisdiction of Magistrate Courts

S. 121 of CPC: An offence shall be tried by a Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction it was committed. [GENERAL RULE]

S.9 (a) of CPC: Every Magistrate shall have power to hear, try, determine and dispose of in a
summary way prosecution for offences committed wholly or in part within the local
jurisdiction of such Magistrate.

S.2 (1) CPC: ‘Local limits of jurisdiction’ of Magistrate Court means limits of administrative
district in which the court is situated.

S.76 (1) of SCA: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may constitute so many Magistrates’ Courts as
he may think fit, and shall have power to assign local limits of jurisdiction thereto.

S.76 (2) of SCA: A Magistrates’ Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any
criminal matter arising within its local limits of jurisdiction.

3.1 Is there any ‘limits” assigned?

Peter Anthony v PP – In this case, the Court held that the local limits of jurisdiction have
been assigned and referred to the Federal Subsidiary Legislation 1948 (Court Ordinance
1948) which came into force on 1 October 1955 and is still valid and subsisting.

Abul Hasan bin Mohamed Rashid v PP – In this case, the court held that the Court
Ordinance 1948 had clearly stated the local limits of jurisdiction for the sessions court in
Peninsular Malaysia was state-wise.

4.0 Local Jurisdiction of Sessions Court

S. 121 of CPC: An offence shall be tried by a Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction it was committed. [GENERAL RULE]

S.9 (a) of CPC: Every Magistrate shall have power to hear, try, determine and dispose of in a
summary way prosecution for offences committed wholly or in part within the local
jurisdiction of such Magistrate.

S.59 (1) of SCA: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may constitute so many Sessions Courts as he
may think fit and shall have power to assign local limits of jurisdiction thereto

S.59(2) of CPC: A Sessions Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any criminal
matter arising within its local limits of jurisdiction.

4.1 Is there any ‘limits’ assigned?

Refer above.

4.2 Is the word ‘Magistrate’ including Session Court?

Tengku Abdul Aziz’s case – In this case, it was held that the word “magistrate” also
includes a Sessions Court judge.

5.0 Local Jurisdiction of High Court

S. 121 of CPC: An offence shall be tried by a Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction it was committed. [GENERAL RULE]

S.22 (1) (a) (i) of CJA: High Court shall have jurisdiction to try all offences committed
within its local jurisdiction.

S.3 of CJA: “Local jurisdiction” means

(a) in the case of the High Court in Malaya, the territory comprised in the States of
Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang,
Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor, Terengganu and the Federal Territory of Kuala
Lumpur; and

(b) in the case of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, the territory comprised in the
States of Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territory of Labuan, including, in either
case, the territorial waters and the air space above those States and the territorial
waters.
Sova Sdn Bhd v Kasih Sayang Realty Sdn Bhd - Each branch of the High Court in Malaya
located in any state has concurrent jurisdiction to entertain any civil proceedings regardless of
whether the cause of action arose in another state.

Bumiputra-Commerce Leasing Bhd v Nethaven Pacific Sdn Bhd & Ors - The High Court
in Malaya and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak have co-ordinate (equal) jurisdiction and
status and not concurrent jurisdiction.

6.0 Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction

Extra-territorial jurisdiction refers to power to hear and try cases committed outside
Malaysia.

6.1 Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction of Magistrate & Sessions Court

S.4 (1) of PC: Extension of Code to extraterritorial offences.

Refer to PC for full provision.

S.494 of PC: Whoever, having a spouse living, marries during the life of such spouse,
disregarding whether such marriage has taken place within Malaysia or outside Malaysia,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also
be liable to fine.

S.127A (1) of CPC: Liability for offences committed out of Malaysia

Refer to CPC for full provision. It’s too long.

6.2 Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court

S.22 (1) (a) of CJA

S.22 (1) (b) of CJA

Refer to CJA for full provision.

Kasayah Dhalin Hussein v PP – In this case, the applicant applied to strike out the charge
against him, arguing that the Malaysian High Court had no jurisdiction to try him as the
offence was committed outside its local jurisdiction on a vessel not registered in Malaysia.
The Court held that S.22 (1) (b) (iv) of CJA was clear and unambiguous in conferring
jurisdiction on the High Court to try the purported offence.
6.3 Where the offence runs from outside the jurisdiction to within the jurisdiction

e.g. Prepare boom in Singapore, bring it into Malaysia.

Lee Szu Yin v PP – It was held that the Magistrates’ Court at Johore Bahru had no
jurisdiction to hear the case as the accused only made the undervalued declaration in
Singapore and was not responsible for its declaration at Johore Bahru.

PP v Yong Nam Seng – It was held that the Court at Johore Bahru had jurisdiction as the
accused’s act of signing the declaration dorm in Singapore and presenting it at Johore Bahru
was a continuous one.

7.0 Original Jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction refers to the power to hear a case & pass a sentence for the first time. It
can be further divided into two types:

● Trial Jurisdiction – What offence can be tried?

● Sentencing Jurisdiction – What sentence can be imposed?

7.1 Original Jurisdiction of 1st Class Magistrate

1st Class Magistrates’ Court

Trial Jurisdiction Sentencing Jurisdiction

S. 85 of SCA - A First Class Magistrate S.87 (1) of SCA: A First-Class Magistrate

shall have jurisdiction to try all offences for
which the punishment does not exceed 10
years imprisonment or with fine only and
offences under sections 392 and 457 of the
Penal Code.
may pass any sentence allowed by law not
exceeding—
(a) 5 years’ imprisonment;
(b) a fine of 10 thousand ringgits;

(c) whipping up to 12 strokes.

Exceptions

1. Offences under S.392 (robbery – 14
years) and S. 457 (housebreaking to commit
any offence – 5 years, housebreaking to
commit theft – 14 years)
1. Proviso to S.87 (1) of SCA: The court
may award the full punishment, if there is
any specific law which confers the Court the
jurisdiction to award punishment for any
offence in excess of the power prescribed by
this section.
2. Maxim ‘generalia specialibus non
derogant’. The FCM shall have the
jurisdiction to try any offences even though
it exceeds its original jurisdiction if there is
a specific provision.
● S.118 of Customs Act 1967 - FCM
shall have jurisdiction to try any
offence under the Act and may
impose the full punishment for any
such offence, notwithstanding the
provisions of any written law to the
contrary.
● S.41 of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
– FCM has jurisdiction to try any
offence under this Act except an
offence under S.39B of the DDA
(concerning trafficking of dangerous
drugs which carries death penalty)
and power to impose full
punishment provided for that offence
by this Act. Yet, for punishment of
imprisonment shall not be exceeding
5 years.
● S.41 of DDA 1952
● S.118 of Customs Act 1967
● S.18 (3) of Betting Act 1953: A
Magistrate’s Court may impose any
punishment authorized by this Act,
notwithstanding that the same be in
excess of the punishment which such
court is ordinarily empowered to
impose.
✔ Cheong Ah Cheow v PP –
The Court held that the
Magistrate has the
jurisdiction to award full
punishments as provided in
S.6 (3) (a) of the Betting Act
1953 (fine not less than 20k
& imprisonment not
exceeding 5 years) as it is
authorised by S.18 (3) of the
same Act read together with
the proviso of S.87 (1) of
SCA.

2. S.87 (2) of SCA: Notwithstanding

subsection (1), the FCM may award the full
punishment authorized by the offence of
which the person has been convicted if the
judge knows of the accused’s previous
convictions and records his reasons for
doing so.

● Abdul Wahab v PP – It was held

that the Court shall have power to
award full punishment authorised by
the written law to the appellant by
extending the imprisonment to 10
years as he already had 12 previous
 allegations before this.
● [Must note] PP v Tengku Hitam –
Hashim J stated that the provisions
of S.87 (2) of SCA should only be
invoked when the case takes an
unexpected turn and the evidence
adduced shows that the maximum
sentence that can be imposed under
S.87(1) by the Magistrate is
inadequate.
● Thus, decision of PP is important,
they should decide rightly which
court to go instead of simply
request the Magistrate to increase
punishment later on the ground of
the accused’s previous convictions.

S.102 of SCA: If the accused was convicted on more than one offence and the Magistrates’
Court has to impose more than one sentence of imprisonment at one trial, the Court may
order the sentences to run concurrently or consecutively, provided that the maximum does not
exceed 20 years.

Refer to full provision

Note: Only applies to MC and not SC

7.1.1 Does S.85 give exclusive jurisdiction to MC?

Nadarajah v PP – In this case, the Court held that S.85 of SCA does not oust the trial
jurisdiction of the Sessions Court as S.63 of the same Act expressly stated that Sessions Court
shall have jurisdiction to try all offences other than offences punishable with death. In other
words, Sessions Court may try cases which are under the magistrate's trial jurisdiction.

7.1.2 How to determine which court to charge the accused if both SC and MC has
jurisdiction over an offence?
A.145 (3) of FC: The Attorney General shall have power to institute, conduct or discontinue
any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court
or a court-martial.

A.145 (3A) of FC: The Attorney General has the power to determine the courts in which or
the venue at which any proceedings which he has power under Clause (3) to institute shall be
instituted or to which such proceedings shall be transferred.

Thus, normally the AG will look at the extent of punishment that can be imposed by the
courts and then decide which court to run the case.

PP v Tengku Hitam: In this case, it was stated that the prosecution must consider whether
the maximum punishment which a Court can impose is adequate. If it appears inadequate, the
prosecution should bring the case before another Court.

7.2 Original Jurisdiction of Session Court

Session Courts

Trial Jurisdiction Sentencing Jurisdiction

S.63 of SCA: A Sessions Court shall have S.64 of SCA: A Sessions Court may pass
jurisdiction to try all offences other than any sentence allowed by law other than the
offences punishable with death. sentence of death.

Whipping cannot extend 24 strokes.

S.288(5) of CPC: When a person is

convicted at one trial of any two or more
distinct offences which are legally
punishable by whipping, the maximum
number of strokes are 24 strokes in case of
adult and 10 in case of youthful offenders.

● Tuan Mat bin Tuan Lonik v PP –

The Session Court initially passed a
sentence of 50 strokes on the
accused for five offences of rape
punishable under S.376B of PC.
However, the Court of Appeal
subsequently reduced the number of
strokes to 24 as it contravened
 S.288(5) of the CPC.

7.3 Original Jurisdiction of High Courts

A.121 (1) of FC: High Courts of Malaysia and High Courts of the States of Sabah and
Sarawak shall have co-ordinate (equal) jurisdiction.
High Courts
Trial Jurisdiction Sentencing Jurisdiction
S.22 (1)(a) of CJA: The High Court shall S.22 (2) of CJA: The High Court may pass
have jurisdiction to try all offences. any sentence allowed by law.

Practically, HC will hear cases in which the

SC has no jurisdiction.

S.22 (1)(b) of CJA: The High Court shall

have jurisdiction to try offences under
Chapter VI and VIA of PC, and under any
written law.

Refer to S.22 of CJA for more specific

offences listed.

S.30 (1) of CJA: The presiding officer of

the subordinate court may stay the
proceedings in which any question arises as
to the effect of any provision of the
Constitution or may transmit the record
thereof to the High Court.

● In other words, the HC may consider

a question as to the effect of a
provision of the Constitution which
is necessary for the determination of
a criminal proceedings once record
of proceedings is transmitted to HC
by a subordinate court.
 ● Repco Holding Bhd v PP – In this
case, the sessions judge, when facing
with the constitutional argument, had
acted under S.30 of the SCA and
transmitted the record in the case to
the High Court to determine the
constitutionality of the two
subsections concerned.

Siow Chung Peng v PP – In this case, the Court held that the original jurisdiction of the
High Court is as stipulated in S.22 of the CJA, that is the jurisdiction to try all offences.

7.4 Original Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal

[Sentencing Jurisdiction] S.60 (1) of CJA: The Court of Appeal may confirm, reverse or
vary the decision of the High Court, or may order a retrial or may remit the matter with its
opinion to the trial court, or may make such other order in the matter as to it may seem just,
and may by that order exercise any power which the trial court might have exercised.

[Sentencing Jurisdiction] Proviso to S.60 (1) of CJA: The Court of Appeal may,
notwithstanding that it is of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in
favour of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of
justice has occurred.

[Sentencing Jurisdiction] S.60 (2) of CJA: The Court of Appeal may quash the sentence
passed by the High Court if it thinks that a different sentence should have been passed, and
thereafter pass such other sentence in substitution.

7.5 Original Jurisdiction of Federal Court

A.126 of FC and S.13 of CJA provide that the Federal Court does not conduct criminal trials
but may punish for contempt of court.

A.126 of FC: The Federal Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court shall have power to
punish any contempt of itself.

S.13 of CJA: The Federal Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court shall have power to
punish any contempt of itself.
8.0 Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Jurisdiction refers to the power to review the decision of lower court.

8.1 Appellate Jurisdiction of High Court

S.26 of CJA: The High Court shall have appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals from
subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.

8.2 Appellate Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal

S.121 (1B) of FC

1. Where case originates from Magistrates’ Court

S.50 (2) of CJA: The Court of Appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any
appeal against any decision of the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisionary
jurisdiction in respect of any criminal matter decided by a Magistrates’ Court but such appeal
shall be confined to only questions of law.

● PP v Mahathir Muhammad – In this case, it was held that in respect of criminal

appeals which originates from Magistrates Court, S.50(2) of the CJA requires both the
public prosecutor and the accused person to confine the appeal to questions of law
only.

S.50(3) of CJA: If the Public Prosecutor appeals, he is only required to give a notice of
appeal and no leave of the Court of Appeal is required. However, if defence wanted to
appeal, then a leave of Court is required.

Note: Matters which may be appealed are confined on a question of law only. Question of
fact is a question which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences
arising from those facts. Such a question is distinct from a question of law, which must be
answered by applying relevant legal principles.

Note: Leave are needed for defence counsel.

2. Where case originates from Sessions Court

S.50 (1) (b) of CJA: The Court of Appeal shall have the jurisdiction to hear and determine
any appeal against any decision made by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or
revisionary jurisdiction in respect of any criminal matter decided by the Sessions Court.

S.50 (4) of CJA: The appeal may lie on a question of fact or a question of law or on a
question of mixed fact and law.
Unlike cases which originate from Magistrates’ Court, an appeal to Court of Appeal against
the decision of High Court may lie on either question of fact or question of law.

3. Where case originates from High Court

S.50 (1) (a) of CJA: Subject to any rules regulating the proceedings of the Court of Appeal in
respect of criminal appeals, the Court of Appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine
any appeal against any decision made by the High Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction.

S.50 (4) of CJA: Except as otherwise provided in this section, an appeal may lie on a
question of fact or a question of law or on a question of mixed fact and law.

Unless cases which originate from Magistrates’ Court, an appeal to Court of Appeal against
the decision of High Court may lie on either question of fact or question of law.

8.3 Appellate Jurisdiction of Federal Court

S.121 (2) of CJA

S.87 (1) of CJA: The Federal Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any appeal
from any decision of the Court of Appeal in its appellate jurisdiction in respect of any
criminal matter decided by the High Court in its original jurisdiction subject to any rules
regulating the proceedings of the Federal Court in respect of appeals from the Court of
Appeal.

S.87 (3) of CJA: An appeal may lie on a question of fact or a question of law or on a question
of mixed fact and law.

Can Federal Court hear cases which originate from MC or SC?

Answer: No.

Tan Sri Eric Chia Eng Hock v PP – In this case, it was held that S.87 of the CJA clearly
provides that in criminal cases the FC will only have jurisdiction to hear and determine any
appeal from the decision of the COA in its appellate jurisdiction in respect of matter decided
in the HC in its original jurisdiction. Thus, when a criminal matter originated from the SC,
the COA stands as the final court or the apex court, and no further appeal shall lie to the FC.

Siow Chung Peng v PP – In this case, it was held that for the FC to have jurisdiction to hear
and determine an appeal, two preconditions must be met, i.e. the decision of the Court of
Appeal was in its appellate jurisdiction in respect of the criminal matter; and the criminal
matter was decided by the High Court in its original jurisdiction.
9.0 Revisionary Jurisdiction of High Court

S.31 CJA: The Hight Court may exercise powers of revision in respect of criminal
proceedings and matters in subordinate courts in accordance with any law for the time being
in force relating to criminal procedure.

S.35 (1) of CJA: The High Court shall have general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction
over all subordinate courts, and may in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing provision, if it appears desirable in the interests of justice, either of its own
motion or at the instance of any party or person interested, at any stage in any matter or
proceeding, whether civil or criminal, in any subordinate court, call for the record thereof,
and may remove the same into the High Court or may give to the subordinate court such
directions as to the further conduct of the same as justice may require.

S.35 (2) of CJA: Upon the High Court calling for any record as aforesaid all proceedings in
the subordinate court in the matter or proceeding in question shall be stayed pending further
order of the High Court.

By reading both Section 31 and 35 CJA together, we know that in the interest of justice, the
HC may either on its own motion or by information of any interested party, at any stage, call
for the record thereof, or remove or may give such directions as to the further conduct of the
same as justice may require.

10.0 Co-ordinate Jurisdiction

A.121 (1) of FC: There shall be 2 High Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely -
(i) High Court in Malaya; and (ii) High Court in Sabah and Sarawak.

Bumiputra-Commerce Leasing Bhd v Nethaven Pacific Sdn Bhd & Ors - The High Court
in Malaya and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak have co-ordinate (equal) jurisdiction and
status and not concurrent jurisdiction.

11.0 Inherent Jurisdiction

Refer to Senior’s Note page 40-44.

Lecturers didn’t teach.

12.0 Court for Child

S.2 of Child Act 2001: “Child” means a person under the age of 18 years, or in relation to
criminal proceedings, means a person who has attained the age of criminal responsibility as
prescribed in S.82 of the PC.

S.82 of PC: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under the age of 10 years.

S.11 (5) of CA 2001: A Court for Children shall have jurisdiction to try all offences except
offences punishable with death.

[During pendency of case, Child attains 18] S.83 (2) of CA 2001: When a child is charged
with an offence before a Court For Children and during the pendency of the case he attains
the age of eighteen years, the Court For Children shall continue to hear the charge and may –

(a) exercise the power under section 76;

(b) exercise the power under paragraph 91(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (da); or

(c) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment, impose any term of imprisonment
which could be awarded by a Sessions Court.

[Before charging, Child attains 18] S.83 (3) of CA 2001: When an offence is committed by
a child but the charge is made against the child after he has attained the age of eighteen years,
the charge shall then be heard by a Court other than a Court For Children.

[Child is jointly charged with Adult] S.83(4) of CA 2001: A charge made jointly against a
child and a person who has attained the age of eighteen years shall be heard by a Court other
than a Court For Children.

PP v Mohd Turmizy Mahdzir – In this case, it was held that the accused were rightfully and
legally tried by the High Court instead of the Court For Children as the charge made against
them was after they attained the age of 18, despite that such offence was committed before
the age of 18.

Sentencing Jurisdiction of Court For Children

S.96 (1) CA: A child under the age of fourteen years shall not –

(a) be ordered to be imprisoned for any offence; or

(b) be committed to prison in default of payment of a fine, compensation or costs.

S.97 (1) CA: A sentence of death shall not be pronounced against a person convicted of an
offence if at the time when the offence was committed he was a child.

S.96 (2) of CA: In lieu of a sentence of death, the Court shall order a person convicted of an
offence to be detained in a prison during the pleasure of-

(a) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong if the offence was committed in the Federal Territory
of Kuala Lumpur or the Federal Territory of Labuan; or
 (b) the Ruler or the Yang di-Pertua Negeri, if the offence was committed in the State.

12.0 Open Court

S.7 of CPC: The place in which any criminal court is held for the purpose of trying criminal
offences (regardless of seizable or non-seizable offence), it must take place in an open and
public court. [General Rule]

S.101 of SCA: A Sessions Court Judge shall have the power to hear any matter or
proceedings in chambers.

S.15 of CJA: The place in which any Court is held for the purpose of trying any cause or
matter, civil or criminal, shall be deemed an open and public court to which the public
generally may have access.

Lee Boon Tuan v PP - The Court held that there is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code
which limits the right of the court to conduct any inquiry or try any offence outside the court
building so long as the public are not specifically excluded.

PP v Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor – The Court held that trial proceedings must be
done transparently, so that the public would be able to appreciate any decision reached by the
court.

Exception: Child For Children

S.12 (3) of CA: No person shall be present at any sitting of a Court For Children except —

(a) members & officers of the Court;

(b) the children who are parties to the case before the Court, their parents, guardians,
advocates & witnesses, and other persons directly concerned in that case; and

(c) such other responsible persons as may be determined by the Court.

Note: This provision provides that in order to maintain the strict privacy of the children.

Exception: Official Secret

S.27 of Official Secrets Act 1972: Public shall be excluded from any proceedings if the
publication of any evidence or any statement would be prejudicial to the safety of Malaysia.