Vincent Ng J:

On 19 April 1999 the learned magistrate convicted the appellant after he pleaded guilty to the following three charges under the Protection of Wild Life Act 76/72 to wit:

(1) Bahawa kamu pada 12.4.99, jam lebih kurang 3.15 petang, di Setor Kastam Padang Besar, Padang Besar Utara dalam Negeri Perlis, didapati dengan menyalahi undang-undang memiliki 105 ekor 'binatang liar yang diperlindungi' iaitu 105 ekor Ular Asiatic Cobra (Naja-naja) yang masih hidup (sejenis binatang liar yang disenaraikan dalam Jadual Dua Butiran 422 dibawah Akta 76/72). Oleh hal yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 68, Akta Perlindungan Hidupan Liar (Pin) 1988, Akta Perlindungan Hidupan Liar Bilangan 76 Tahun 1972. (The first charge).

(2) Bahawa kamu pada tarikh, waktu dan di tempat yang sama, telah didapati dengan menyalahi undang-undang memiliki 2441 ekor 'binatang liar yang diperlindungi' iaitu 2441 ekor ular Oriental Rat Snake (Ptyas mucosus) yang masih hidup (sejenis binatang liar yang disenaraikan dalam Jadual Dua, butiran 433, dibawah Akta 76/72). Oleh hal yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 68, Akta Perlindungan Hidupan Liar (Pin) 1988, Akta Perlindungan Hidupan Liar Bilangan 76 Tahun 1972. (The second charge).

(3) Bahawa kamu pada tarikh, waktu dan di tempat yang sama, telah didapati dengan menyalahi undang-undang memiliki 2546 ekor 'binatang liar yang diperlindungi' iaitu 105 ekor Ular Asiatic cobra (Naja-naja) dan 2441 ekor Ular Oriental Rat Snake (ptyas mucosus) dalam kurungan yang tidak sesuai (dengan mengurung binatang berkenaan dalam karung guni net nylon dan raga plastik) (sejenis binatang liar yang disenaraikan dalam Jadual Dua, butiran 422 dan 433, di bawah Akta 76/72). Oleh hal yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 92(1)(c)(Pin) 1988, Akta Perlindungan Hidupan Liar Bilangan 76 Tahun 1972. (The third charge).

On the first charge the appellant was sentenced to seven days imprisonment and RM3,000 fine, and in default three months jail. He was similarly penalised on the second charge, and on the third charge the learned magistrate imposed seven days imprisonment and RM5,000 fine, and in default five months jail.

Some like it hot in the pot, but most hate it - in or out of the pot - since its alleged unfortunate watershed encounter with the biblical Adam and Eve. Be that as it may, like it or not, the snakes concerned in the current charges against the appellant are protected species not only in Malaysia but, also, under the Convention On The Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna of which Malaysia became a member since 19 October 1977.

Sentencing is guided by established principles and guidelines - in accordance with which, the courts generally exercise their discretion - which I would now propose to adumbrate in catalogue form for the benefit of judicial officers of the lower courts, who have scarce time to glean and pick the essential points from a long rambling dissertation on the topic. The principles and guidelines to be adopted, though not slavishly applied in every case, are to wit:

(1) Public interest is of paramount consideration, though, if the offender could, by the nature of the sentence, be induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living, such interest is indeed served. See R v. Ball 35 Cr App R, 164, Lim Yoon Fah v. PP [1971] 1 MLJ 37, Chan Sit Hoong v. PP [1975] 1 MLJ 261 and Goh Kheng Seong v. PP [1992] 4 CLJ 2133.

(2) A first offender of good character where his first offence is not of great intrinsic gravity ought not to be sent to prison - See PP v. Yap Chong Fatt [1963] 29 MLJ 136, Taib bin Gemok v. PP [1984] 1 MLJ 313 and Zaidon Shariff v. PP [1996] 4 CLJ 441. (3) A previous conviction is to be taken into consideration in assessing sentence only if the previous offence was not too far apart in time and was of a similar nature as the one with