Chris Kooi Wei Kit

The case of Lini Ahmat, a 38-year-old mother sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for committing theft of groceries valued at RM374.69 has drawn significant public attention and reignited legal discourse surrounding sentencing consistency and the exercise of judicial discretion in Malaysia. This sentence was imposed despite the presence of compelling mitigating factors, including her unemployment, a sick father, and a six-month-old baby.

Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim condemned the sentence, calling it “ridiculous” and questioning the Magistrate’s compassion. While his concerns reflect public frustration, such remarks only touch the surface of a more complex judicial sentencing process. Magistrates do not sentence in a vacuum. Sentencing is a complex judicial task where the magistrates are also guided by established sentencing principles and prevailing sentencing trends They make decisions based on the mitigating and aggravating factors submitted by both the prosecution and the defence. Hence, it would be unfair to place the entire blame on the magistrate alone. 

Anyone familiar with proceedings at the Magistrates’ Court will know that it is often the busiest court with a high volume of cases being heard daily. In practice, when a case is called, the interpreter reads the charge. If the accused pleads guilty, the prosecution proceeds to present the facts and evidence. Thereafter, the court invites the defence to submit on mitigating factors, followed by the prosecution’s submission on aggravating factors. The magistrate then delivers a sentence. In many of the cases I have observed, this entire process often takes less than ten minutes.

In many cases, the submissions on mitigating and aggravating factors are standardised and repetitive. The defence often repeats the standard line: “pengakuan salah OKT menjimatkan masa dan kos mahkamah“ (the guilty plea has saved the court’s time and cost) while the prosecution typically concludes with the phrase “pohon hukuman setimpal“ (we seek a proportionate sentence). With such generic and repetitive submissions, how can we reasonably expect magistrates to make fully informed and nuanced sentencing decisions?

The prompt action taken by Justice K. Muniandy in calling up Lini Ahmat’s case for review deserves commendation. The three-month custodial sentence was overturned. From the details reported, the manner in which the sentence was reviewed offers important lessons for all court practitioners. Justice Muniandy engaged directly with the accused, repeatedly asking whether she understood that stealing is a crime and advised her to find a job to support herself. This demonstrates that sentencing must not only punish but also to rehabilitate. 

Notably, the Deputy Public Prosecutor, Izalina Abdullah conceded that the sentence was excessive. She demonstrated that the role of the prosecution is not to seek the harshest sentence possible but to ensure justice is served through a fair and proportionate outcome. Conceding that a sentence is excessive does not mean losing a case. Rather it reflects a proper understanding of the public interest. Credit is also due to Lini’s counsel, Collin Andrew who acted promptly and effectively mitigating on behalf of Lini before the High Court. 

The case of Lini Ahmat underscores the urgent need to improve sentencing process in Malaysia’s lower courts. While reforms like sentencing guidelines and AI sentencing are important, the reality on the ground such as time pressure, heavy caseloads and generic submissions often hinders fair sentencing outcomes. The approach taken by Justice K. Muniandy’s court reminds us that sentencing should not be mechanical but must reflect the values of justice, proportionality, and humanity. All legal practitioners should take this as a reminder in the sentencing process.