Back
2024 MarsdenLR 530
MAGISTRATE COURT TAIPING
PP – Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMAD AZRIEN MAT HUSSIN – Respondent
[Criminal Case No: AB-83D-1601-11/2023]
Distinct offences committed in prison warrant consecutive sentences, emphasizing deterrence and the need for proportionality in sentencing.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 282(d) and 292 - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 12(2) - Accused sentenced for possession of methamphetamine while serving time for attempted murder - One-year imprisonment to commence after completion of seven-year term - Distinction between two offences established, warranting consecutive sentences. (Paras 1-44)
(B) Sentencing principles - Court must balance retribution, prevention, deterrence, and rehabilitation - Concurrent sentences not an entitlement; discretion exercised based on nature of offences. (Paras 24-28)
Facts of the case:
The accused, already serving seven years for attempted murder, pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine in prison. The court imposed an additional one-year sentence to commence after the initial term. (Paras 2-8)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the second offence was distinct from the first, warranting a consecutive sentence. (Paras 33-34)
Issues: Whether the one-year sentence should run concurrently or consecutively with the existing seven-year sentence. (Paras 19-20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the second offence arose from a different transaction, justifying a consecutive sentence. The overall sentence was deemed proportionate. (Paras 38-40)
Result: Accused sentenced to one-year imprisonment to commence after the completion of the initial seven-year sentence.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] As the final stage of the judicial process in a criminal case, sentencing holds significant importance in upholding criminal justice. In determining an appropriate sentence, the court must consider a range of objectives, balancing the need for retribution, prevention, deterrence, and rehabilitation while maintaining the interest of both the public and the accused. This delicate balance is especially essential when an accused person commits an offence within the confines of a prison while already serving a sentence for a prior offence.
[2] In this case, the accused was brought to this court to face a charge ('the second offence') while serving an imprisonment term of seven years ('the first offence'). The accused has pleaded guilty to the charge of the second offence. After considering mitigating and aggravating factors, this court has imposed a one-year imprisonment term. This court ordered this one-year imprisonment term to begin once the accused completes his current imprisonment sentence of seven years for the first offence.
[3] The accused, dissatisfied with the decision, is appealing the sentence to the High court of Taiping. This judgment set out this court's reasons for doing so, and the approach this court took in reaching that decision.
[4] In this judgment, the Criminal Procedure Code will be referred to as the ' CPC ' and the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 as the ' DDA 1952'.
The Amended Charge And Conviction
[5] The accused faced the following amended charge (exhibit P1) before this court (written in Bahasa Melayu):
"Pertuduhan Pindaan
Bahawa kamu 17 Oktober 2023 jam lebih kurang 1620 hrs di Lokap UKP Bahagian Pemeriksaan Penjara Taiping dalam Daerah Larut Matang Selama dalam negeri Perak telah ada dalam milikan kamu 1.01 gram yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 12(3) akta yang sama.
Hukuman seksyen 12(3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952
Jika disabitkan kesalahan boleh dikenakan denda tidak melebihi dari seratus ribu ringgit atau dikenakan hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih daripada lima tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali."
[Emphasis Added]
[6] The amended charge above was read and explained to the accused in Bahasa Melayu. He said he understood the charge and the punishment. He pleaded guilty. This court was satisfied that he understood the nature and consequence of his plea.
[7] The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor then tendered the facts of the case (which was read to the accused by the court interpreter) and all the relevant exhibits (which were marked and shown to the accused). The accused admitted the facts of the case and all the exhibits tendered without any qualification.
[8] This court accepted his plea and convicted him on the charge. After considering mitigating and aggravating factors, this court sentenced the accused to a one-year imprisonment term, to be served consecutively after his current imprisonment sentence.
[9] The issue in this case revolves around determining the appropriate imprisonment sentence for the accused, particularly whether it should commence from the date of conviction or after the completion of his current sentence. To understand this matter better, it is necessary first to explain some background facts.
Background Facts
The First Offence
[10] As mentioned earlier, when the present case came before this court, the accused was already in the midst of serving an imprisonment term of seven years for the first offence. The first offence was one of an attempt to murder under s 307 of the Penal Code (second limb).
[11] The charge read as follows:
"Pertuduhan:
Bahawa kamu pada 11 April 2023 jam lebih kurang 1051 malam bertempat di hadapan Bangunan Angsana Mall, Jalan Raja Ashman Shah, Kampung Kastam Greentown 30450 Ipoh, di dalam Daerah Kinta, di dalam Negeri Perak, didapati mencuba membunuh orang dengan niat sehingga menyebabkan ced
