ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
The dual role played by the Attorney General of Malaysia as the legal advisor for the government and the person who decides on whether criminals are prosecuted, raises the question whether he can discharge his duties impartially and objectively, especially when deciding whether to prosecute high ranking members of the government for crimes. This paper seeks to address the potential conflict that may arise from the existence of this dual role, is the scope of the prosecutorial discretion, the limits placed upon it by the law and whether the Attorney General can claim immunity in respect of the consequences of the exercise of his discretion. The paper comprises of doctrinal analysis on the scope of discretionary power of the Attorney General and through comparative analysis of several other jurisdictions, examines the trend and contemporary approach on the exercise of such power. It is found that the judiciary in the exercise of judicial review is keen on maintaining the status quo, despite attempts of more progressive approach. This paper provides some recommendations of the Attorney General’s prosecutorial role on a proper exercise of discretion, promoting transparency as decisions shrouded in secrecy diminished the standing of the Attorney General’s office.
Abu Bakar, B. (2015). The Attorney General as Public Prosecutor in Malaysia: From Quasi-Judicial to Executive. IIUMLJ, 23(2), 345-381.
Acton, L. (1887). Letter to Archbishop Mandell Creighton. Retrieved from https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html
Applegate, A. G. (1982). Prosecutorial Discretion and Discrimination in the Decision to Charge. Maurer Faculty, 35-88. Retrieved from
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/1018
Australian Law Reform Commission. (1980). Sentencing of Federal Offenders. Report no 15.
Boolell, S. S. (2013). Prosecutorial Discretion and Its Challenges. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 39(1), 5-15. doi:10.1080/03050718.2012.751192
Boyd, C. L., Nelson, M. J., Boldt, E. D., & Ostrander, I. (2021). The Politics of Federal Prosecution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chan, G. (2013). Prosecutorial Discretion and the Legal Limits in Singapore. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 25(1), 15-50. Retrieved from http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1185
Davies, K. (1969). Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry. Baton Rogue: Louisiana State University Press.
Fisher, D. (1993). Fifth Amendment-Prosecutorial Discretion No Absolute: Constitutional Limits on Decision Not to File Substantial Assistance Motions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83(4), 744-772. Retrieved from
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=6756&context=jclc
Frankel, M. E. (1973). Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order. Hill & Wang.
Hoecke, M. V. (2015). Methodology of Comparative Legal Research. Law and Method, 1-35.
Hoecke, M. V. (2016). Methodology of Comparative Legal Research. Law and Method, https://doi.org/10.5553/rem/.000010.
House of Commons. (1951). Parliamentary Debates, 483(683).
Imam, M. (2000). Power to Prosecute and Enter Nolle Prosequi Under the Federal Constitution and the Laws of Malaysia: A Viewpoint. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 42(1), 40-55.
International Commission of Jurist. (1959). Rule of Law in a Free Society. New Delhi. Retrieved from https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1959/01/Rule-of-law-in-a-free-society-conference-report-1959-eng.pdf
Langbein, J. H. (1973). The Origin of Public Prosecution at Common Law. American Journal of Legal History, 17, 313-335. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1550&context=fss_papers
Layton, D. (2002). The Prosecutorial Charging Decision. Criminal Law Quarterly, 447-482.
Marvin, E., Frankel, C. S. (1973). Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order.
Rosenberg, M. (2009). The Attorney General and the prosecution function in the twenty first century. Queen’s Law Journal , 43, 813–862.
Sanders, A. (1986). An Independent Crown Prosecution Service. Criminal Law Review, 28(4), 16-27.
Shahizam, S. (2020). Wither Non-Justiciability? An Argument for Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion in Light of the Basic Structure . Malayan Law Journal, 2, cxli-clxxii.
Sheridan, L. A. (1987). The Constitution of Malaysia (4 ed.). Singapore: Malayan Law Journal.
Smits, J. M. (2017). What is Legal Doctrine? On the Aims and Methods of Legal-Dogmatic Research (September 1, 2015). In H.-W. M. Rob van Gestel, Rethinking Legal Scholarship: A Transatlantic Dialogue, (pp. 207-228). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stenning, P. C. (2009). Discretion, Politics, and the Public Interest in “High-Profile” Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions. Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , 24(3), 337-366.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0829320100010073
Stith, K. (2008). The Arc of the Pendulum: Judges, Prosecutors, and the Exercise of Discretion. Yale L.J., 1420-1497. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2264&context=fss_papers
Yang, K. (2013). Public Accountability of Public Prosecutions. , Vol.20, (No.1), p.29-30. Murdoch University Law Review, 20(1), 28-75. Retrieved from
http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/22599
In-Text Citation: (Omar, 2021)
To Cite this Article: Omar, H. (2021). The Attorney General’s Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion in Malaysia: A Critique of Scope, Limitation and Challenges. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(10), 1355–1371.
Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode