Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3863
HIGH COURT MALAYA MUAR
MOHAMAD SAIFUL AZHAR MOHD AMIN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: JB-41H-25-08/2020]
Proper evidentiary procedures must be followed in admitting previous convictions during sentencing; failure to do so leads to potential miscarriages of justice.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Crime Act 1959 – Sections 15(1) and 15(4) – Criminal Procedure Code – Section 400 – Appeal against sentence imposed for violation of Police Supervision Order – Admission of previous convictions must be substantiated by certified records according to established legal procedures – Absence of proper documentation during sentencing led to a miscarriage of justice – The Court confirmed that established procedures must be adhered to prevent unjust sentencing. (Paras 6, 15, 46, 56)
(B) The court articulated considerations for sentencing, mentioning deterrence, rehabilitation, and public interest in the context of previous convictions and the principle that appellate courts should rarely interfere unless the original sentence is manifestly unjust. (Paras 38-52)
Facts of the case: The appellant admitted to violating the Police Supervision Order by failing to report to the Senggarang Police Station and attempted to contest previous convictions as evidence improperly admitted at trial.
Findings of Court: Existing evidence of previous convictions did not comply with statutory requirements for admissibility; the sentencing magistrate adequately weighed all relevant factors.
Issues: Legitimacy of previous convictions as evidence in determining the sentence; appropriateness of the learned magistrate's sentence given the circumstances and nature of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: Proper procedure regarding previous convictions must be strictly adhered to avoid miscarriages of justice; considerations for sentencing must balance public interest against individual circumstances.
Result: Appeal dismissed and originality of the sentence affirmed.
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against sentence meted out by the Learned Magistrate sitting in Batu Pahat in the State of Johore on 26 July 2020.
[2] The Appellant was charged at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and the Charge proffered against him is as follows:
(English Translation)
That you on 17 December 2017, at about 1430 hours, at Senggarang Police Station, in the District of Batu Pahat, in the State of Johore, as a person who is under Police Supervision Order, under s 15(1) Prevention of Crime Act 1959 , have violated the conditions of the said Order, ie failed to report to the Senggarang Police Station, and you have thereby committed an offence, under s 15(4) , which is punishable under the same provision.
[3] The Appellant pleaded guilty against the Charge, and the Appellant informs the Court that he understands the Charge and after ascertaining that the Appellant understood the nature and consequences of the Plea of Guilty, he also admitted to the brief facts of the case as well as the exhibits which included previous convictions. The Learned Magistrate convicted the Appellant and sentenced the Appellant to 4 years imprisonment term with effect from 29 June 2020.
[4] The Appellant seek a reduction of the sentence which was meted out by the Learned Magistrate.
The Issue In This Appeal
i. Whether The Failure To Reject P8 Is Fatal To The Conviction And Sentence
ii. Whether The Sentence Passed By The Learned Magistrate Is Proper In Law
[5] I shall address the issues accordingly
i. Whether The Failure To Reject P8 Is Fatal To The Conviction And Sentence
[6] The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brought the attention of this Court to the admission of the Appellant to P8, the record of previous convictions which was admitted by the Appellant.
[7] It was argued that P8 is incomplete and hence it cannot fall within the meaning of either (a) by an extract certified under the hand of the officer having the custody of the records of the Court whether of Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore in which that conviction or acquittal was had to be a copy of the sentence or order; or (b) in case of a conviction either by a certificate signed by the officer in charge of the prison in Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore in which the punishment or any part of it was inflicted, or by production of the warrant of commitment under which the punishment was suffered, pursuant to s 400, Criminal Procedure Code .
[8] This is because according to the Learned Counsel P8 is not an extract certified under the hand of the officer having the custody of the records of the Court whether of Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore and also not a certificate signed by the officer in charge of the prison in Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore.
[9] This argument is not without force because Act No 7 which is the REGISTRATION OF CRIMINALS AND UNDESIRABLE PERSONS ACT is the statute that entrenches the supervisory provision pertaining to proper registration of criminals wherein the preamble which reads as follows "An Act to consolidate and amend the laws providing for the registration of certain criminals, banishees, expelees, depottees and restrictees and for other purposes connected with it". Section 10 of the said Act spells out the requirements for the admissibility of evidence of matters prescribed therein which states:
10. Proof of finger impressions and previous convictions
(1) Subject to subsection (2) every:-
(a) finger print form if duly authenticated by the authenticating officer;
(b) certificate, document or extract (whether relating to finger impressions or otherwise) which is:-
(i) based on entries extracted from the register; and (ii) certified by the Registrar to be so extracted; or
(c) certificate signed by the Registrar that:-
(i) the finger impressions of a person have been compared with other finger impressions previously or subsequently taken; and
(ii) the finger impressions which have been compared belong to o
