“The next pertinent consideration is the intention of Parliament in enacting the provision of ss. 39B(2) and 39B(2A) of the DDA 1952. In this regard, the Hansard can be used to assist in interpreting the intention of Parliament. In relation to this, the Hansard of 30 November 2017 is relevant. The Minister's explanation clearly revealed the intention of Parliament, in that the condition in para. (d) of s. 39B(2A) must be satisfied before the discretion to impose the sentence of life imprisonment under s. 39B(2) can be invoked. It is a mandatory requirement. Thus, paras. (a), (b) or (c) of s. 39B(2A) are to be read disjunctively and each of the paragraphs is to be read conjunctively with para. (d).”
“In this regard, the purposive approach must be taken in interpreting s. 39B(2A) to ensure the intention of the Legislature is carried out and this is also in consonance with s. 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.”
“The other important feature of s. 39B(2A) is the usage of the word 'only' before paras. (a), (b), (c) and (d). Therefore, the power of the court to impose the sentence of imprisonment for life and whipping of not less than fifteen strokes is to be exercised only with regard to the circumstances specified in these paragraphs and not in any other circumstances.” – per Nordin Hassan JCA in Mohd Saifuddin Ab Rahman v. PP & Another Appeal [2021] 1 CLJ 343
Emails sent to you weekly with the latest updates on the law.
