In drug offence sentencing, public interest is paramount, necessitating a careful balance of mitigating and aggravating factors.

[1] This is an appeal by the PP against the inadequacy of sentence passed by the High Court at Shah Alam on the respondent. The respondent was initially charged with an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the Act"). Subsequently, the prosecution tendered an alternative charge under s 6 punishable under s 39A(2) of the same Act for possession of 534.12 grams of cannabis in front of house No 16B, Jalan Pandan Indah 4/30, Pandan Indah, Kuala Lumpur ("the alternative charge"). The respondent also faced another charge of possession of 6.67 grams cannabis at the same place, an offence under s 6 of the Act.

[2] The respondent pleaded guilty to both the alternative charge and the charge under s 6 of the Act. For the alternative charge, the respondent was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and 10 strokes of whipping. For the other charge, the respondent was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment from date of arrest. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

[3] The PP, being dissatisfied with the sentence imposed on the alternative charge, filed this appeal. After hearing submissions, we allowed the appeal. We set aside the sentence of 8 years' imprisonment on the alternative charge and substituted it with imprisonment of 12 years effective from date of arrest. We affirmed the sentence of 10 strokes of whipping. Our reasons for doing so now follow.

Background Facts

[4] The facts of the case as admitted by the respondent (exh P6) can be summarized as follows. On 27 Februari 2014, at about 3.30pm, a raid was conducted by the police headed by Inspector Mohamad Rashidi bin Mat Din, the raiding officer and complainant in this case. They raided the premise as stated in the charge. When the complainant arrived at the said house, he saw the respondent with a female child. The complainant introduced himself and arrested the respondent.

[5] Upon physical examination of the respondent, the complainant found one plastic packet which contained compressed dried leaves in the trousers pocket of the respondent. This was later confirmed by the chemist to be 6.67 grams of cannabis.

[6] The complainant then searched the respondent's house and what transpired next is as described in the admitted facts:

"OKT kemudiannya telah memandu arah Pengadu ke bahagian tingkat atas rumah dan masuk ke dalam bilik ketiga bahagian belakang. Setelah masuk ke dalam bilik tersebut, OKT telah mengambil 1 bekas plastik bertutup dari rak almari kayu bertingkat dan terus menyerahkannya kepada Pengadu. Hasil pemeriksaan Pengadu dapati di dalamnya mengandungi serbuk dan 3 ketulan mampat tumbuhan kering. Pemeriksaan selanjutnya terhadap rak almari kayu tersebut telah menjumpai 1 bekas balang kaca bertutup 'ASCON INTERNATIONAL' di dalamnya mengandungi 2 paket plastik lutsinar, masing-masing berisi ketulan mampat tumbuhan kering, Pengadu turut menjumpai 1 bekas plastik bertutup 'BABY WIPES' di dalamnya mengandungi 1 ketulan mampat tumbuhan kering dibalut dengan plastik lutsinar. Selain daripada barang-barang kes yang disyaki dadah di atas ditemui, Pengadu turut menjumpai 1 helai dokumen dari CIMB Islamic Bank dan 3 helai penyata akaun CIMB Islamic atas nama OKT di bahagian atas rak almari kayu berkenaan. Manakala, di atas lantai bilik yang sama, Pengadu telah menjumpai 1 beg plastik warna biru yang berisi beberapa paket plastik kosong, 1 papan pelapik kayu dan 1 bilah pisau."

[7] The items suspected to be dangerous drugs were sent to the chemist for analysis. Upon analysis, the chemist found the said items to contain 534.12 grams of the dangerous drug can