Kogila a/p Krishnan v Public Prosecutor

Court of Appeal · · Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This digest provides AI-generated summaries of recent Malaysian legal judgments and is provided for general informational purposes only. The digest may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. For complete and authoritative information, always consult a qualified legal professional and refer to official court sources (here) or the full text of original judgments. The providers of this digest accept no responsibility or liability for any loss and/or damage resulting from reliance on its contents.

Kogila a/p Krishnan v Public Prosecutor
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date11 September 2024
Date Uploaded26 November 2025
Legal TopicsCriminal Law, Criminal Procedure
Parties

Appellant(s): Kogila A/p Krishnan

Respondent(s):

  • Pendakwa Raya
  • [Pendakwa Raya]
Bench
  • YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru
  • YA Datuk Mohamed Zaini Bin Mazlan
  • YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
Facts & Background
  • The appellant was convicted by the High Court under Section 26C of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (ATIPSOM 2007) for smuggling a minor.
  • The minor, a Sri Lankan national, was found to have travelled from Sri Lanka to KLIA and then attempted to transit through Malaysia to Paris using a Malaysian passport belonging to another boy, facilitated by the appellant.
  • The appellant claimed she was a victim of manipulation due to emotional vulnerability and limited education, believing she was helping an abused child reunite with parents, and was unaware of the passport deception until confronted by Muscat airport officials.
Issues for the Court
  • Whether the High Court erred by not allowing the appellant's counsel to submit on the admissibility of her statement (P77) to an Immigration officer, thereby infringing her constitutional rights.
  • Whether Section 35 of ATIPSOM 2007, which restricts the use of statements made to enforcement officers, should take precedence over Section 18A of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA 2012) regarding the admissibility of the appellant's statement.
  • Whether the four-year imprisonment sentence imposed by the High Court was excessive, given the appellant's alleged role and mitigating factors.
Decision
  • The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's conviction and sentence, dismissing the appellant's appeal.
  • The Court held that the High Court did not err in admitting the appellant's statement (P77) under Section 18A of SOSMA 2012, as the offence falls within SOSMA's scope, and Section 35 of ATIPSOM 2007 does not override it.
  • The Court found no merit in the appellant's claim of being denied the right to submit on P77's admissibility, noting that the objection was withdrawn and counsel had opportunities to address it, and the sentence was not excessive.
Link to JudgmentView Full Judgment

Related judgments

📬 Found this useful?

Get daily AI-generated summaries of Malaysian legal judgments from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal straight to your inbox, free!