Public interest in sentencing, especially for serious offences, outweighs considerations of leniency or guilty pleas.

[1] The Appellant was charged as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 1 November 2017, jam lebih kurang 0245 HRS di MCV SDN BHD Jalan Kg Dew Simpang 34000 Taiping Perak dengan sengaja telah menyebabkan kecederaan yang parah kepada Mohammed Sulaiman bin Abdul Rahim KPT: 661219025455 dengan menggunakan sebatang besi dan adalah dengan ini melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 326 Kanun Keseksaan."

[2] On 1 November 2017, at about 2.45 am, when the complainant was on duty as a security guard at MCV Sdn Bhd's factory, he saw a person entering the factory and stealing a piece of steel weighing approximately 30 kg. He apprehended the person who was later identified as the Appellant. The complainant brought the Appellant to the main security post when suddenly the Appellant took a steel rod and hit the complainant on his left leg which caused him to sustain injuries. On examination, it was confirmed that his left leg was fractured. He lodged a police report (Simpang Report 3434/17) and the Appellant was arrested by the police on 6 January 2018. The Appellant was charged in Taiping Sessions Court on 10 January 2018 under s 326 of the Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to the complainant.

[3] The Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment from the date of arrest, namely 6 January 2018, and with 1 stroke of whipping.

[4] The prosecution appealed to the High Court against the sentence for being manifestly inadequate. The High Court affirmed the whipping but set aside the sentence of 2 years imprisonment and substituted it with a sentence of 7 years imprisonment. The Appellant appealed against the order of the High Court.

In The Sessions Court

[5] The learned Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) ruled that the sentence was just, reasonable and not too lenient and in accordance with the law. In passing sentence, the SCJ took into consideration the gravity of the offence, the facts of the case, mitigating factors and that the Appellant was a first offender but had caused grievous hurt to the complainant by hitting the left leg of the complainant with an iron rod which caused a fracture to the left leg. The act was recorded on CCTV.

[6] The SCJ also took into consideration that the Appellant had pleaded guilty and had saved the Court's time and costs thus entitling the Appellant for some reduction in sentence. In considering public interest, the SCJ said that the sentence should not only be a lesson to the Appellant but also as a deterrence to the public at large. The SCJ was of the view that a too long custodial sentence might not be a good thing to him and hoped the sentence would serve as a lesson and deterrence to the Appellant.

In The High Court

[7] The learned High Court Judge said that although the sentence imposed by the SCJ was within the ambit and range permitted under s 326 of the Penal Code , the issue for determination was whether the sentence was according to law.

[8] He said even though the SCJ had considered public interest, but the sentence passed did not reflect public interest for such a serious offence under s 326 of the Penal Code . The learned High Court Judge ruled that public interest must take precedence over the interest of the Appellant and the fact that the accused was a first offender and had pleaded guilty could not override the public interest factor in sentencing. He was of the view that the mitigation factors could not be given more priority in a serious offence case and there must be exceptional circumstances before allowing a lenient sentence to take precedence over public interest.

[9] The learned High Court Judge in his grounds of judgment had referred to several