High Court rejects Ismanira’s appeal, five‑year jail for neglect in Zayn Rayyan case upheld

Ismanira Abdul Manaf attends the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur on July 22, 2025. — Bernama pic

First Published: Monday, 28 Sep 2026 2:06 PM MYT

SHAH ALAM, Sept 28 — The High Court here today dismissed Ismanira Abdul Manaf’s appeal to set aside her conviction and five-year jail sentence for neglecting her six-year-old son, Zayn Rayyan Abdul Matin, causing him physical injury three years ago.

The decision by Judge Noor Hisham Ismail means Ismanira, 31, remains behind bars for five years, as sentenced by the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court l ast year.

“After reviewing the appeal records, including the Sessions Court judge’s grounds of judgment and written and oral submissions of both parties, this court is satisfied in finding that the Sessions Court judge made no error of fact or law in her decision,” he said when reading out the brief judgment.

He said the charge clearly set out every element of the offence under Section 31(1)(a) of the Child Act 2001, and the manner of neglect was also particularised, such that the accused could not possibly have been misled, meaning there was no miscarriage of justice.

“The word ‘neglect’ means the omission by a person having care of a child to provide the attention, supervision or care required by the child’s circumstances.

“The standard of care is measured against the child’s age, abilities and needs, as well as the child’s environment. It is distinct from the branch of ‘acting negligently’, which refers to a positive act,” he said.

Separately, the court also dismissed the prosecution’s cross-appeal against the five-year jail sentence imposed by the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court judge, holding that the sentence handed to Ismanira was adequate.

“An appellate court will only intervene if the sentence is manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive, or if there has been an error of principle. The consequences of an offence may be considered in sentencing. However, the accused was sentenced for her own neglect, not for the criminal act of a third party.

“Therefore, the five-year jail sentence imposed by the Sessions Court judge was neither inadequate nor manifestly excessive,” the judge said in proceedings attended by Ismanira’s lawyers Haresh Mahadevan, Lavanesh Haresh and Tiara Katirina Fuad.

Deputy public prosecutors Ahmad Iqbal Azman, Kamarul Iman Ahmad Sapian and Raja Zaizul Faridah Raja Zaharudin appeared for the prosecution.

In the petition of appeal, the defence argued that the Sessions Court judge had erred in concluding that the injuries sustained after Zayn Rayyan went missing were caused by the appellant’s act of allowing the autistic child to walk behind her.

The defence further argued that the court had erred in relying on the conclusion of the investigating officer, who characterised Ismanira’s conduct as a form of neglect.

The prosecution, meanwhile, argued that the conviction and five-year jail sentence against Ismanira were justified, but sought a higher, deterrent sentence.

According to the prosecution, a heavier sentence was necessary to deter the repetition of similar offences, particularly those involving individuals close to, or responsible for, the care of the victim.

On Oct 31, 2025 last year, Petaling Jaya Sessions Court judge Dr Syaliza Warnoh sentenced Ismanira to five years in jail after finding that the defence had failed to raise a reasonable doubt and that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing a case beyond reasonable doubt against Ismanira at the close of the defence.

On Dec 23, 2025, the High Court dismissed Ismanira’s application to stay the execution of the sentence imposed for the offence of neglecting Zayn Rayyan.

Judge Datuk Aslam Zainuddin found no special circumstances to allow the court to grant a stay of sentence pending appeal. 

Ismanira was also ordered to perform 120 hours of community service, to be completed within six months after the end of her jail sentence.

She was charged under Section 31(1)(a) of the Child Act 2001, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both upon conviction. — Bernama