Criminal proceedings in Malaysia are not confined to courtroom walls. Under several provisions of federal law, a judge may declare a hospital ward — or virtually any other location — an open court, allowing charges to be read, pleas to be recorded, and even trials to be conducted outside the conventional courtroom setting.
Senior criminal lawyers who spoke to Malay Mail confirmed that this mechanism is legally sound, procedurally established, and has been applied in at least four documented cases in Malaysia since 2016.
The Legal Framework Is Explicit: Multiple Statutes Authorise Court Proceedings Outside Courtrooms
The power to hold court outside a courtroom building is not a judicial improvisation — it is codified in Malaysian law across at least three separate statutes.
Senior criminal lawyer Datuk N. Sivananthan identified the key provisions: Section 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), and Sections 15 and 15A of the Courts of Judicature Act (CJA). Sections 7 and 15 allow “the place” where any court is held for a criminal case to be treated as an “open and public court” to which the public generally may have access. Section 15A further enables court proceedings to be conducted online.
“Yes, the ward can be declared as open court and the proceedings can take place as if one was in the actual court concerned,” Sivananthan confirmed. “You can declare any place as an open court.”
The Subordinate Courts Act reinforces this further. Section 76(3) states that a Magistrates’ Court can be held at any other place if there is a need to do so, while Section 59(4) similarly provides that a Sessions Court can be held at any other place if the necessity arises.
Former Malaysian Bar president Salim Bashir Bhaskaran noted that while an accused would in “ordinary circumstances” be charged in a courtroom, the Subordinate Courts Act gives magistrates and Sessions Court judges the power to declare “an open space or confined areas like hospitals, nursing homes” — or police stations and prisons — as a court.
Criminal lawyer Rajsurian Pillai pointed to Sections 173(a) and 178(1) of the CPC, which require an accused person to appear or be brought before a magistrate or High Court judge for the charge to be read, explained, and a plea recorded. “Neither provision makes the physical courtroom itself the essential requirement,” he said.
The Procedure Mirrors Standard Court Process, With Additional Logistical Requirements
When criminal proceedings are held in a hospital ward, the procedure follows the same legal standards as those conducted in a conventional courtroom — the venue changes, but the requirements do not.
Sivananthan explained that the judge must be physically present at the hospital ward, formally declare it an open court, have the charge read out, record the plea, and set bail if it is granted. “The ward must allow for access by lawyers and the public, which is a requirement of an open court,” he said.
Salim confirmed that the procedure would be “the same” as an ordinary court process: an interpreter reads out the charge to a conscious accused person, the nature and consequences of pleading guilty or not guilty must be explained, and the plea is then formally recorded.
Beyond the legal process itself, the logistical requirements are considerable. Court police, court staff, and the equipment needed to record proceedings — including Malaysia’s current digital recording and voice-to-text transcription system — must all be present at the hospital. Sivananthan noted that compared to the past, when records were handwritten, conducting proceedings elsewhere is now significantly more complex, as hospitals do not have standard courtroom equipment such as video recorders and microphones.
To initiate the process, the prosecution must formally apply to the judge before whom the charge is registered. The defence cannot object unless the accused is not fit to understand the proceedings. Police are required to consult with doctors in advance to assess the accused’s medical condition before the judge makes a determination.
Hospitalisation, Repeated Delays, and Urgent Timelines Are the Primary Triggers
The decision to charge or try a person in a hospital is not made lightly. Lawyers identified a narrow set of circumstances that typically give rise to such applications.
Sivananthan said the most common trigger is when “a charge keeps getting delayed because the accused is constantly in hospital for one reason or the other.” Salim described it as being reserved for an “exceptional situation of need,” adding that urgency of the matter and the need to avoid unnecessary delays due to the accused’s health conditions are the primary considerations.
“The judge or magistrate will assess the request from prosecution primarily based on the accused’s health conditions and advice from health officers,” Salim said.
Rajsurian outlined a specific scenario in which urgency is legally compelled: where an accused is hospitalised during the police investigation period and faces a charge under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act — an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment with whipping. Because no bail can be granted for a capital charge, the accused cannot be released and must be formally charged within the investigation period, regardless of their medical condition.
Rajsurian stressed that the essential legal requirement in any such proceeding is not the venue but the officer conducting it: “The important point is that a High Court judge or judicial officer — a Sessions Court judge or magistrate — is conducting the proceedings, and that the usual procedural and legal safeguards for criminal cases are complied with.”
Hospital Proceedings Are a Last Resort — Four Documented Cases Illustrate How They Work in Practice
All three lawyers were consistent on one point: holding court in a hospital is a last resort, not a default option.
Salim cautioned that “conducting trials in hospitals should be the last resort,” as declaring hospitals as courts and holding proceedings there may prevent public access to hospital facilities “due to constraint of space or security reasons.”
Sivananthan agreed, noting that charging an accused outside the courtroom “has to be resorted to as a last resort” due to the practical difficulties involved — convenience, staff movement, police assignments, and security at a non-standard location.
Rajsurian said court proceedings at hospitals would only take place for “very urgent” cases where no other options exist.
Despite this high threshold, the practice has precedent in Malaysia. Based on the Malaysian Judiciary’s 2016 Yearbook, the Court of Appeal on September 23, 2016 declared a hospital ward at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Kota Kinabalu an open court under Section 7 of the CPC to hear the appeal of Suadin @ Shuhaiddin Langkab against two corruption convictions, after the case had been postponed multiple times and medical officers confirmed he was fit to attend.
On December 22, 2020, a corruption charge was read to senior immigration officer Zulkifly Abd Za’Par before a Sessions Court judge at a hospital in Shah Alam, after the prosecution applied to charge him there while he was being treated for high blood pressure and heart disease. On January 11, 2021, a further 21 counts of accepting RM56,500 in bribes were read to him at a private hospital in Johor Bahru before another Sessions Court judge.
On May 6, 2025, 28-year-old Mohamad Fauzan Adib Abd Aziz was charged in a ward at Shah Alam Hospital — where he was receiving treatment for seizures — with the murder of a fellow beggar. He nodded to indicate he understood the charge, read out before a magistrate in closed-door proceedings.
On January 9, 2026, Yeoh Hock Sun, 63, pleaded not guilty to five charges related to an improvised explosive device (IED) explosion in Nilai, with the charges read before a Sessions Court judge in closed-door proceedings at Hospital Tuanku Jaafar in Seremban, where he was being treated for injuries sustained in the explosion. Yeoh was pronounced dead on February 27, 2026 at Hospital Kuala Lumpur.
Most recently, on August 7, 2026, initial reports indicated that former prime minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob could be charged at the National Heart Institute (IJN). His case was ultimately postponed to August 27 after his lawyers cited pacemaker surgery for abnormal heart rhythm, with the prosecution raising no objection on humanitarian grounds.
Section 117 of the CPC Also Allows Remand Proceedings at Any Location Before a Magistrate
The same flexibility that applies to charging proceedings extends to remand hearings. Section 117 of the CPC allows remand proceedings to take place at any location before a magistrate, as the provision does not specify “court” and requires only that the accused be brought before a magistrate.
Rajsurian confirmed that he has personally represented clients in remand proceedings before magistrates at police lock-ups, halls at district police headquarters, and hospitals. Sivananthan said that based on Sections 7, 15, and 15A, both remand proceedings and trials can take place outside court by having the relevant location declared an open court.
On the question of trials, while the legal framework technically permits them to be held in hospitals, Sivananthan described this as unlikely in practice: “There would be an issue whether the accused person can understand what is going on depending on his health condition. That would also apply to a person being charged. The accused must be able to understand the charge and to follow proceedings as the case may be.”
Section 15 of the CJA also provides a mechanism to restrict public access: a court can decide to hear a case “in camera” — that is, privately — for reasons including the interests of justice, public safety, public security, or propriety, which allows for closed-door proceedings in a hospital ward when circumstances require it.
About the Author
