Back
2014 MarsdenLR 2612
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
AGUS – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Review No: MTJB (2) 43-50-10-2014]
A court must ensure the convicted person is only penalized for their actions, and confiscation of property should solely apply to its legal owner. Unrepresented defendants' admissions of guilt are sufficient for conviction despite procedural issues.
Headnote:(A) Control of Supplies Act 1961 (Revised 2006) - Sections 20(1) and 26(1) - Conviction and sentencing of the applicant for diesel smuggling based on guilty plea - Appeal submitted against sentencing only - Legal principles surrounding evidentiary standards for the conviction and property confiscation discussed. (Paras 1, 6, 22, 26)
(B) Admission of guilt - Conviction upheld despite procedural shortcomings as the applicant, being the vessel's captain, had knowledge of the diesel's nature. The appeal was dismissed due to the applicant's admission of guilt. (Paras 20, 21)
(C) Confiscation of the vessel - Court found that only the vessel's owner may be subject to confiscation under s 26 of the Act. The applicant, as captain, cannot be punished for property ownership. Confiscation was deemed excessive and unjust. (Paras 22, 31, 33)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was sentenced in 2014 for diesel smuggling, fined RM100,000, or six months imprisonment, and the vessel was confiscated. He appealed against sentencing only, not conviction.
Findings of Court:
The conviction was upheld, but the confiscation of the vessel was reversed, allowing its return to the owners.
Issues: Main issues addressed were the validity of EVIDENCE for conviction and the legality of the vessel's confiscation.
Ratio Decidendi: Court held that the evidence standards for conviction differ from other offenses; an admission of guilt from an unrepresented accused suffices. The confiscation should only impact the actual owner, not the captain.
Result: Conviction upheld; vessel confiscation reversed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issues of conviction and legality of sentencing. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on whether appeal includes conviction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. guidelines on sentencing under control of supplies act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. court's authority on revisions despite previous affirmations. (Para 12 , 14 , 16) |
| 5. chemist reports as part of the evidence required. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. requirements for confiscation of vessels under the act. (Para 22 , 25 , 26 , 29) |
| 7. discretionary power of courts on property confiscation. (Para 30 , 33) |
| 8. conclusion on the return of the vessel and conditions. (Para 34) |
[1] The issues of the revision are:
(i) Whether the conviction of the appellant can be sustained when one of the ingredients of the charge, ie the diesel was not scientifically proven when tendered as exhibit during sentencing.
(ii) Whether the confiscation of a vessel detained during smuggling of diesel is legal in view of s 26 Control of Supplies Act 1961 (Revised 2006) hereinafter "the Act".
The Background Facts
[2] On 16 July 2014 the applicant/accused was charged under s 20(1) of the Act in the Johor Bahru Sessions Court and pleaded guilty. The accused was unrepresented. The learned Sessions Judge fined him to RM100,000 in default six months imprisonment. It is the maximum fine allowed under the law. The Court also ordered that the ship "Selina" confiscated ("dilucuthak"). The applicant, an Indonesian citizen and the captain of the ship, did not pay the fine and was imprisoned.
[3] On 27 July 2014 the applicant filed a notice of appeal against the sentence. Subsequently, on 26 August 2014 the applicant filed in the petition of appeal.
[4] The appeal against the sentence was heard on 20 October 2014. Mr Paul Krishnaraja, the learned counsel for the appellant argued against the conviction and sentence to which Datin Tay Lee Ly, the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor for the respondent objected stating that the notice of appeal was only for the sentence and not conviction.
[5] This Court agreed with the respondent and heard only submissions on the sentence.
The Appeal On Sentence
[6] Section 22 (1) Control of Supplies Act 1961 (revised 2006) provided for, upon conviction, the offender shall be liable to a fine not exceeding RM100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both, and for a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding RM26,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
[7] The learned Sessions Judge in his grounds of judgment explained the reasons for sentencing the accused to the above sentence as below:
Sebelum saya menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap OKT, saya telah menimbang rayuan ringan hukuman OKT dan juga hujahan oleh TPR. Saya mengambil kira pengakuan bersalah OKT. Pengakuan bersalah OKT sememangnya telah menjimatkan masa mahkamah. Walau bagaimanapun kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT adalah satu kesalahan yang serius. Seperti yang dihujahkan oleh TPR, penyeludupan minyak diesel adalah masalah yang dihadapi Negara. Tidak ada faktor-faktor yang meringankan hukuman yang memihak kepada OKT untuk Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman yang ringan. Berdasarkan kepada keadaan dan fakta kes ini serta kepentingan awam Mahkamah tidak memberi diskaun kepada pengakuan bersalah OKT. Mahkamah perlu menjatuhkan hukuman denda yang maksima agar ianya menjadi pengajaran kepada OKT untuk tidak mengulangi kesalahan yang sama dan kepada orang awam untuk tidak melakukan kesalahan yang sama. Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman denda RM100,000 kalau tidak bayar 6 bulan penjara. (see p 15 of the Appeal Record).
[8] Realizing the nationality of the appellant and his disadvantage of not having a counsel to defend him the learned Sessions Judge had asked him:
Mahkamah: Kamu faham akibat dan kesan pengakuan salah kamu? Kamu boleh dipenjara sehingga 3 tahun atau denda tidak melebihi RM 100,000.00? Perbicaraan tidak akan diadakan, saksi-saksi tidak akan dipanggil oleh pendakwaan. Mahkamah sekiranya menerima pengakuan s
