Sentences for armed gang robbery must be severe to serve as a deterrent, given the crime's violent nature and impact on victims, considering public interest at the forefront.

[1] The two appellants, both Indonesian nationals, were charged in the Sessions Court at Kajang with armed gang robbery and the charge against them is as follows:

Bahawa kamu bersama-sama dua orang yang masih bebas, pada 27 Julai 2012 jam lebih kurang 0330 hrs, di alamat No 2 Jalan Harmoni 11/3, Taman Harmoni, di dalam Daerah Kajang, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah melakukan samun berkawan dan bersenjata ke atas Hisham Bin Zakaria, No KP: 680106-10-5727 dengan menggunakan sebilah pisau, dan mengambil barang kepunyaannya iaitu satu Unit Komputer Riba jenama HP, tiga unit telefon Bimbit Blackberry dan Nokia, dan wang tunai berjumlah lebih kurang RM1,100. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 395/397 Kanun Keseksaan .

[2] They pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to seven years imprisonment and seven strokes of the rattan each. The offence carries an imprisonment term of up to 20 years upon conviction and the offender is also liable to whipping. They were dissatisfied with the sentence and appealed for the sentence to be reduced, on the following grounds:

(a) they pleaded guilty to the charge.

(b) they are remorseful and promise not to commit the same offence in future.

[3] However at the commencement of the hearing they applied to withdraw the appeal. In passing sentence the learned Sessions Court Judge rightly considered public interest as the paramount consideration, citing R v. Ball [1951] 35 Cr App R 164 ; Public Prosecutor v. Loo Choon Fatt , ; Public Prosecutor v. Teh Ah Cheng ; Teo Siew Peng & 4 Ors v. Public Prosecutor; Public Prosecutor v. Nazarudin Ahmad & Ors; . He also rightly said that it would be wrong to be lenient with the appellants. In Mohamed Jusoh Bin Abdullah And Another v. Public Prosecutor ; the Malayan Court of Appeal laid down the rule that in passing sentence the guideline should include the following:

(i) consideration on the nature of the offence;

(ii) the circumstances under which the offence was committed;

(iii) the degree of deliberation shown by the offender;

(iv) the provocation, if any received by the accused;

(v) the degree of violence involved; and

(vi) the antecedents, age and character of the accused.

[4] It is therefore incumbent on the sentencing Court to direct its mind properly and adequately to the proved or admitted facts of the case. It is through the facts that the full circumstances of the crime are known. Failure to do so will render the sentence defective. In laying out the facts of the present case this is what the learned Sessions Court Judge noted:

Pada 27 Julai 2012 jam lebih kurang 0405 HRS, semasa bertugas di pejabat pertanyaan, telah terima telefon daripada pengadu nama Encik Hisham, no telefon: 03-87246591 telah kena samun oleh empat Bangsa Indonesia di alamat No 2, Jln 11/3 Taman Harmoni, Bandar Teknologi. Pengadu jadikan report sebagai maklumat pertama. Tangkapan terhadap di (sic) telah dibuat pada 27 Julai 2012 jam lebih kurang 0830 HRS di sebuah rumah kongsi, Kilang Papan Sia Thean Sung, Lot 1054/1, Jln Bangi Bt 1 1/2 Semenyih, Kajang. Tangkapan terhadap B2 telah dibuat pada 27 Julai 2012 jam lebih kurang 1620 HRS di sebuah rumah kongsi, kilang Papan Sia Thean Sung, Lot 1054/1, Jln Bangi Bt 1 1/2 Semenyih, Kajang. Siasatan yang dijalankan mendapati bidan (sic) B2 terlibat dalam kes ini. Dalam kawad cam yang dijalankan A1 dapat cam akan bidan (sic) B2 berdasarkan saiz badan, tinggi dan rambut. Selain itu A1 juga mengecamkan barang rampasan yang dibuat terhadap B1 iaitu satu H/P Blackberry, satu pisau jenama "think kitchen" dan satu jam tangan coleman sebagai mil