The court emphasized the need for deterrent sentencing for drug trafficking, particularly in light of public interest and established sentencing trends.

The Charge

"Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 19 Mei 2013, jam lebih kurang 12.01 tengah malam, di hadapan Mc Donalds, Jalan SS 21/39, Up Town 5, Damansara Utama, di dalam Daerah Petaling Jaya, di dalam Negeri Selangor, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu 871 gram Cannabis, 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 dibaca bersama s 34 Kanun Keseksaan."

Brief Facts Of The Case

[1] On 5 September 2013, acting upon the information on drug trafficking activity, ASP Mohd Sahar bin Mohd Yunus ("the complainant") and his team went to Jalan SS 21/39 Up Town 5, Damansara Utama, Petaling Jaya.

[2] After making observation, the complainant saw a man who was later identified as Muhammad Faiz bin Fazil Mahmud ("the 2nd accused") was sitting with a woman who was later identified as Raznina Alysha binti Radzlan ("the 1st accused") at a table outside Mc Donalds' restaurant.

[3] The complainant and his team then approached the 1st and 2nd accused person's table and introduced themselves as police officers to both of them. A body search was conducted on the 2nd accused but nothing incriminating was found. The police then found and seized a green handbag written Fuji Xerox from the table. On further inspection of the bag, the police found a slab, wrapped in transparent plastic and aluminium foil, suspected to be drugs with a gross weight of 912 grams.

[4] Puan Norhaya Jaafar, the government chemist, after due analysis had confirmed that the slab was cannabis weighing 871 grams. Cannabis is a dangerous drug as defined in s 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the DDA ").

[5] Both accused were jointly charged for trafficking in dangerous drug under s 39B(1)(a) of the DDA read together with s 34 of the Penal Code. The prosecution had subsequently offered an alternative charge of possession under s 6, punishable under s 39A(2) of the .

[6] The 1st accused pleaded guilty on the alternative charge on 13 April 2015. The 2nd accused had followed suit on 27 November 2015. Both accused persons were sentenced to seven years' imprisonment from the date of arrest. The 2nd accused was also ordered to suffer ten strokes of whipping.

[7] This appeal by the Public Prosecutor was in respect of the inadequacy of sentence imposed by the learned High Court Judge against the 2nd accused only. The appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the 1st accused was withdrawn on 7 April 2016 which was filed separately vide Appeal Case No: B-05(S)-152-06-2015.

The Appeal

[8] For the purpose of this judgment, the 2nd accused is referred to as the respondent.

[9] We heard the appeal on 19 May 2016. After perusing through the Record of Appeal and submissions by both parties, we had unanimously agreed to increase the term of imprisonment from seven years that was imposed by the learned High Court Judge to ten years' imprisonment. However, we had maintained the ten strokes of whipping as imposed by the learned High Court Judge. This is now our reasoning for having so decided.

[10] Basically, the appeal by the Public Prosecutor was against the order on the imprisonment sentence. Before us, the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor ("DPP") submitted that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, taking into consideration the amount of cannabis involved in this case, that is 871 grams. Such sentence of imprisonment was also not in line with the current trend of sentencing involving the same kind of offence imposed by the courts. The DPP brought our attention to cases like PP v. Mohd Faiz Salleh , 2016 MarsdenLR 2430 , PP v. Shahrulnizam Borhan (Crimi