KUALA LUMPUR, March 2 — Just last week, Malaysians read that the High Court set aside a Magistrate’s Court's earlier decision to fine 52-year-old Saiful Adli Yusof RM5,500 for assaulting and threatening Liew Khoon Foo, 70, in a road rage incident.

Instead, Saiful received a four-month custodial sentence after Liew read his impact statement in court, describing his continued trauma after the incident.

Most Malaysians are probably not aware that since 2011, victims or their families can describe to the court the harm/impact the crime has had on them. 

But what exactly is a victim impact statement?

A victim impact statement (VIS) is a written or oral account by a victim – or their family – describing how an offence has affected their life. 

It may include physical injuries, emotional trauma, fear, disruption to daily activities, or financial loss caused by the crime.

If the victim or family cannot attend court, the law permits submitting a written statement instead.

In Malaysia, VIS is legislated under Section 183A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

VIS was introduced as part of reforms to the CPC through the CPC (Amendment) Act 2010. 

Although the amendment was passed in 2010, its key provision on victim impact statements – Section 183A – was brought into force in 2011. 

The change was widely supported by the legal profession, including the Malaysian Bar, civil liberties lawyers like current Bangi MP Syaredzan Johan and the late Datuk V.K. Liew, the former de facto law minister and supported by NGOs like Women's Aid Organisation and the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.

Unlike evidence used to determine guilt, a VIS does not decide whether the accused is guilty. 

It is presented only after a conviction or guilty plea, giving judges a clearer picture of the human impact of the crime when deciding an appropriate sentence.

Judges are not bound to follow the victim’s wishes but may consider the statement alongside other factors such as the severity of the offence and the offender’s personal circumstances.

 Examples of VIS in Malaysia over the years

The first Malaysian case to mention the use of a victim impact statement occurred in PP v Satu Dua Jantan Matahir [2012] MLJU 664, even before Section 183A was enforced. 

In that case, involving a charge of outraging modesty, the Court of Appeal increased the sentence on the basis of the severe mental and physical suffering experienced by the victim, who was the accused’s sister‑in‑law.

The first case to explicitly apply Section 183A CPC was PP v Shahrul Azuwan bin Adanan & Anor [2013] 8 MLJ 70. 

The accused, who operated a cattery, was initially fined RM200 per charge after pleading guilty to 30 counts under the Animals Act 1953. 

On appeal, the High Court took into account the suffering of the cats’ owners and the impact on the victims, imposing an additional three months’ imprisonment concurrently for each offence.

In Ahmad Rashidi bin Zainol & Anor v PP [2014] 9 MLJ 562, involving gang robbery, the High Court increased the lower court’s sentence after considering the victim impact statements describing financial loss and trauma. 

Each accused’s sentence was raised to 12 years’ imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane.

In PP v Khairul Nordin [2015] 1 LNS 1241, the court again took into account the family’s victim impact statement in sentencing a man who had killed the deceased with a knife. 

After considering the impact expressed by the victim’s family, the High Court sentenced the accused to 14 years’ imprisonment.

In 2025, Fatimah Latiff delivered her VIS on the stand in the High Court at Ayer Keroh as she recounted the horrific loss of her daughter and grandson. 

In the case, 36-year-old Shahrul Nizam Zuraimy was charged with murdering his wife, 27-year-old Norfazera Bidin, and his 11-year-old stepson, Muhammad Iman Ashraf Abdullah. 

Fatimah said she participated in washing Norfazera's body as part of the funeral rites and was devastated to see her daughter's dismembered remains.

The High Court sentenced the accused to 36 years in prison and 12 strokes of the cane for each charge, to run consecutively from his arrest on Oct 11, 2019.

Earlier this year, Judge Datuk Alexander Siew How Wai handed down the death sentence to Chung King Fung @ Haider Daniel Chung Abdullah in Kota Kinabalu following his guilty plea to killing Nurul Ain Silien, 21. 

Nurul's mother read her VIS in court stating that she had trusted the accused and even treated him like her own child, never imagining he would kill her daughter so brutally.

“My daughter was so small. Why did he kill her as if she were a wild animal?” she asked, and urged the court to impose the maximum sentence.

While VIS cannot overturn convictions or determine guilt, they give courts insight into the human consequences of a crime. 

They have increasingly shaped sentencing decisions, reflecting a shift from treating offences purely as legal abstractions to recognising the real harm suffered by victims and their families.