Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 2953

HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
IBRAHIM MAHD NAZRI – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: AA-42JSKS-2-07-2022 AA-42JSKS-3-07-2022 AA-42JSKS-4-07-2022 & AA-42JSKS-5-07-2022]

Petitioner Advocates:Amirul Fairuzeen Jamaluddin,Manal Hayati,Premela Rajendran ,Respondent Advocate: Geetha Jora Singh

The court affirmed that a guilty plea must be recorded following proper procedures, and an appellant cannot appeal conviction but may appeal sentence, including a review for procedural errors.

Headnote:(A) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 - Sections 14(a), 14(d), 15(a)(ii), and 16 - Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple charges of sexual offences against minors - Sentences included imprisonment and whipping - Court's review of the guilty plea procedure and sentencing - Court found that the guilty plea was properly recorded and understood by the appellant, but identified a sentencing error in one case. (Paras 1-34)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code 1999 - Sections 305, 270, and 325 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Court clarified that an appellant who pleads guilty cannot appeal against conviction but may appeal against sentence - Court emphasized the importance of proper procedure in recording guilty pleas and the exercise of revisionary powers. (Paras 6-10)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged with multiple counts of sexual offences against two minors, whom he was entrusted to transport to and from school. The appellant was arrested shortly after the offences were committed and pleaded guilty in the Sessions Court. (Paras 3-5)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the guilty plea as valid, confirming the appellant understood the charges and consequences. The court reduced the sentence for one charge due to a procedural error in sentencing. (Paras 14-28)

Issues: The main issues included whether the guilty plea was accepted correctly and if the sentences were appropriate given the circumstances of the case. (Paras 6, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the guilty plea was valid, as the appellant understood the nature and consequences of his plea. The court exercised its revisionary powers to correct a sentencing error while affirming the other sentences. (Paras 14-34)

Result: Appeals against conviction struck out; sentence reduced for one charge, other sentences affirmed.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeals and sentences. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the offences and guilty plea. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. discussion on appeal rights under cpc. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. principles of revisionary powers. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. assessment of guilty plea validity. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. arguments on understanding of guilty plea. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. court's evaluation of appellant's understanding. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
8. court's decision on sentencing errors. (Para 27 , 28)
9. court's stance on judicial discretion. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)

Moses Susayan JC:

Introduction

[1] This appeal along with three (3) appeals a rise from the decision of the Sessions Court in Ipoh, where the appellant/accused in all the cases before Sessions Court admitted and pleaded guilty to offences under ss 14(a) and (d) and 16 of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 (SOACA) in all the cases. These appeals were heard together. The following are the respective conviction and sentence for the charges against which the appellant is appealing:

a) Appeal: AA-42JSKS-2-07/2022 (Sessions Court case no: AA-62JSK-47-06/2022)

First Charge:

Under s 14(a) SOACA - 8 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest with 1 stroke of whipping and 3 years' supervision under s 27 SOACA and an additional 2 years' imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping under s 16 of the same Act.

Second Charge:

Under s 14(d) SOACA - 8 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest, 1 stroke of whipping and 3 years' supervision under s 27 of the SOACA, and an additional 2 years' imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping as provided under s 16 of the same Act.

b) Appeal: AA-42JSKS-3-07/2022 (Sessions Court case no: AA-62JSK-49-06/2022)

First Charge:

Second Charge:

Under s 15(a)(ii) SOACA - 8 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest, 1 stroke of whipping and 3 years' supervision under s 27 SOACA, and an additional 2 years' imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping as provided under s 16 of the same Act.

c) Appeal: AA-42JSKS-4-07/2022 (Sessions Court case no: AA-62JSK-50-06/2022)

First Charge:

Under s 14(d) SOACA - 8 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest. 1 stroke of whipping and 3 years of supervision under s 27 SOACA and an additional 2 years of imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping as provided under s 16 of the same Act.

Second Charge:

Under s 14(a) SOACA - 8 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest, 1 stroke of whipping and 3 years' supervision under s 27 SOACA and an additional 2 years' imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping as provided under s 16 of the same Act.

Third Charge:

Under s 14(d) SOACA - 8 years of imprisonment from the date of arrest, 1 stroke of whipping and 3 years of supervision under s 27 SOACA and an additional 2 years of imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping as provided under s 16 of the same Act.

d) Appeal No: AA-42JSKS-5-07/2022 (Sessions Court case No AA-62JSK-48-06/2022)

First Charge:

Under s 14(a) SOACA - 8 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest, 1 stroke of whipping and 3 years of supervision under s 27 SOACA and an additional 2 years of imprisonment 2 strokes of whipping as provided under s 16 of the same Act.

Second Charge:

Under s 14(d) SOACA - 8 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest, 1 stroke of whipping and 3 years' supervision under s 27 SOACA and an additional 2 years' imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping as provided under s 16 of the same Act.

Third Charge:

Under s 14(d) SOACA - Imprisonment of 8 years from the date of arrest, 1 stroke of whipping and 3 years of supervision under s 27 SOACA and an additional 2 years of imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping as provided under s 16 of the same Act.

[2] The sentences for all the charges in cases AA-62JSK-47-06/2022; AA-62JSK-48-06/2022 and AA-62JSK-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 2953

HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOHIBRAHIM MAHD NAZRI – AppellantVersusPP – Respondent[Criminal Appeal Nos: AA-42JSKS-2-07-2022 AA-42JSKS-3-07-2022 AA-42JSKS-4-07-2022 & AA-42JSKS-5-07-2022]

The court affirmed that a guilty plea must be recorded following proper procedures, and an appellant cannot appeal conviction but may appeal sentence, including a review for procedural errors.

Cases Referred (6)

HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
IBRAHIM MAHD NAZRI – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: AA-42JSKS-2-07-2022 AA-42JSKS-3-07-2022 AA-42JSKS-4-07-2022 & AA-42JSKS-5-07-2022]