Noting that Junaidi had attempted suicide after killing his daughters, a group of NGOs condemned the lack of further examination of the “strong indication” that he may have an underlying mental health condition.
“It is also noteworthy that Malaysian law remains lacking in the identification and acknowledgement of mental health conditions that might impact the evaluation of a person’s culpability. Even more so for those accused of offences that carry the death penalty,” they said in a statement.
On Wednesday, the Federal Court upheld the death sentence imposed on Junaidi Bambang after he was convicted for killing his three daughters in 2002.
A three-judge panel had rejected the application to reduce his death sentence under the Review of Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Act 2023 (Federal Court Temporary Jurisdiction).
Junaidi had killed his three daughters – Julaiha, Julaika and Juriyanti – on Feb 27, 2002 at their house in Kampung Dusun, Pekan, Pahang.
The group of NGOs, which includes the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network and Capital Punishment Justice Project, claimed that there has been a trend of hearings being resolved rapidly with limited avenues for lawyers to conduct in-depth mitigation investigations to adduce the necessary detailed mitigating evidence.
“Junaidi has spent over two decades on death row, during which there have been significant developments in the understanding of human psychiatry.
“Yet, there was no discussion on his mental health during his resentencing hearing, in spite of it being relevant to his application for his death sentence to be removed,” they said.
The NGOs added that the failure to hear and examine these issues in full “may amount to a violation of the right to a fair trial, rendering any resulting execution an arbitrary one”.
They also said that the conduct of public prosecutors in resentencing hearings for cases of murder have been “deeply worrying”, noting that the prosecution has persisted in demanding that the death penalty be retained, despite cases clearly exhibiting mitigating factors that should have been taken into account.
“As the government and Parliament have provided a clear direction with their policies on the death penalty, there must be consistency between the imposition of the death penalty and government policy in restricting the death penalty to the most serious crimes, and only imposing it in the rarest of rare cases.
“Clear sentencing guidelines should be developed and implemented to ensure fairness and legal certainty in the process of sentencing – including ensuring that resentencing applicants have access to justice and are able to adduce detailed mitigating evidence in their defence.”