The appellate court can intervene in sentences deemed manifestly inadequate, especially in severe drug offences.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against sentence by the prosecution. The respondent, Ling Leh Hoe, was charged with two offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (" DDA 1952").

[2] For ease of reference, the charges are reproduced below:

1^st charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 05 Mac 2013 jam lebih kurang 2.15 petang di bilik nombor 1036, Hotel Kingwood, No. 12, Lorong Lanang 4, Sibu, dalam daerah Sibu dalam negeri Sarawak, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu cannabis seberat 390.76 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 39B (1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B (2) Akta yang sama.".

2^nd charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 05 Mac 2013 jam lebih kurang 2.15 petang di bilik nombor 1036, Hotel Kingwood, No. 12, Lorong Lanang 4, Sibu, dalam daerah Sibu dalam negeri Sarawak, telah ada dalam MILIKAN kamu dadah berbahaya iaitu Nimetazepam seberat 0.26 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 12(3) Akta yang sama.".

[3] On 26 Mei 2014, the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor ("DPP") informed the COURT that the prosecution had accepted the respondent's representation to prefer an alternative charge of possession for the 1^st offence. The alternative charge is as follows:

"That you on the 5^th March 2013 at about 2.15 pm, at Room No 1036, Kingwood Hotel, No 12, Lorong Lanang 4, Sibu, in the district to Sibu, in the state of Sarawak did have in your possession dangerous drugs, to wit a total of 390.76 grammes of Cannabis which is listed in the First Schedule of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 , without any authorization under the or the regulation made thereunder and that you thereby committed and offence under s 6 of the and punishable under s 39A(2) of the same Act.".

[4] The respondent pleaded guilty to both the alternative charge and the 2^nd charge. The COURT accepted his plea of guilty and convicted him. After hearing submissions from both learned counsel for the respondent and learned DPP, the COURT imposed the following sentence:

(i) The alternative charge: 80 months imprisonment and 10 strokes of whipping; and

(ii) The 2^nd charge: 36 months imprisonment.

[5] The sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run concurrently.

[6] Being dissatisfied with the High COURT's decision, the prosecution filed an appeal against the sentence in respect of the alternative charge.

[7] We heard the appeal on 9 February 2015. At the conclusion of the argument, we found there was merit in the appeal and accordingly we allowed the appeal.

[8] We now give the detailed grounds of our decision.

The Facts

[9] The learned DPP tendered the statement of facts as follows:

(i) On the 5^th March 2013 at about 2.15 pm, after the arrest of two persons by the name of Tang Soon Seng and Philip Lau Fui ing in front of Kingwood Hotel, Sibu and acting on the information received, a police party from the Narcotic Investigation Department Sibu, comprising of D/Kpl Mabong Kom, D/Kpl Siena Bakir, D/Kpl Fareda, D/Kpl Rostinah Suhardi, D/Kpl Bohasan, D/Kpl Jusnalee, D/Kpl Sophian, D/Kpl Melintang, Kpl Husaini, Kpl Jerawi and Mohd Eysham Yaacub headed by Sub Insp Zulkarnain bin Abu Hassan went to the Room No 1036 of Kingwood Hotel, Sibu.

(ii) When the police party arrived outside this particular room, the door was locked from inside. D/Kpl Bohasan then knocked at the door several times and the Accused opened the door. D/Kpl Bohasan introduced himself as a police officer. Upon seeing D/Kpl Bohasan, the Accused looked shock as he already knew that D/Kpl Bohasan was a police officer prior to the date of 5^th Ma