Nomalan a/l Ramayah & Ors v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Leong Soon Long

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YAA Datuk Seri Panglima Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh
• YAA Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji Nawawi
• YA Dato Rhodzariah binti Bujang
• YA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin Ghazali
• YA Dato' Collin Lawrence Sequerah

• The seven applicants were convicted of various serious offences (murder, drug trafficking, and kidnapping) committed while they were under the age of 18.
• Pursuant to Section 97(2) of the Child Act 2001, they were sentenced to be detained in prison at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the respective State Ruler/Governor, resulting in indefinite detention.
• The applicants sought a review of their sentences under Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995, arguing that the enactment of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 and the Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023 rendered their indefinite detention unconstitutional and incompatible with the current legal landscape.

• Whether the applicants met the high threshold for the Court to exercise its inherent powers of review under Rule 137 to prevent injustice or abuse of process.
• Whether the continued indefinite detention of the applicants under Section 97(2) of the Child Act 2001 violates Article 5(1) (right to personal liberty) and Article 8(1) (right to equality before the law) of the Federal Constitution following the legislative reforms for adult offenders.
• Whether the decisions regarding the detention of child offenders under Section 97 of the Child Act 2001, which involve the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, are justiciable.

• The Court unanimously dismissed the applications, holding that the applicants failed to establish the "very exceptional circumstances" required to invoke the Court's inherent review jurisdiction under Rule 137.
• The Court ruled that Section 97(2) of the Child Act 2001 remains a validly enacted law, and the applicants' detention is "in accordance with law" under Article 5(1); furthermore, the classification of child offenders for rehabilitative purposes satisfies the reasonable classification test under Article 8(1).
• The Court affirmed that the power of pardon and the review process under Section 97(4) of the Child Act 2001, read with Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, are executive functions that are non-justiciable, and that any further reform to the sentencing regime for child offenders is a matter for the Legislature, not the Court.