Jeffrey Tan J:

[1] In the court below, the appellant pleaded guilty to the following offence.

Bahawa kamu bersama-sama rakan yang masih bebas pada jam lebih kurang 12.45 pagi, 5.8.2005 di dalam kilang Teat Leng Industrial, Simpang Renggam, Dalam Daerah Kluang, Dalam Negeri Johor, telah didapati menggunakan kekerasan jenayah dengan mendatangkan cedera menggunakan sebilah pisau ke atas penama Mahdi Bin Suratin semasa melakukan perbuatan samun. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 394 Kanun Keseksaan di baca bersama di bawah seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.

[2] This is the appellant's appeal against the sentence of ten years imprisonment and six strokes of the cane that the trial court handed down on 12 August 2006.

[3] The appellant argued his own appeal and said as follows. He was 44 and had worked as a lorry driver. His wife helped out as a laundry worker. He had 4 children of ages 12, 7, 5 & 4 and a paraplegic mother. He had kidney problems. He committed the offence whilst he was on drugs - "ambil dadah sebab buat itu". Saying he would not take drugs again, the appellant pleaded for a shorter term of imprisonment. The Learned Deputy Public Prosecutor, Nur Irmawatie bte Daud, pointed to the long record of the appellant and said that sentence should be affirmed.

In deciding the appropriate sentence ... the first and foremost consideration is the public interest" (R v. Kenneth John Ball 35 Cr App R 164; see also R v. Murukaiyan Rasoo[1957] MLJ 26). "If the court finds the accused guilty or if a plea of guilty has been recorded and accepted the court shall pass sentence according to law. A sentence according to law means that the sentence must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section, but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles" (PP v. Jafa bin Daud[1981] 1 MLJ 315 at p 316, per Mohamed Azmi J, (as he then was)). "The first and foremost consideration of punishment is the public interest. [Because] the object of punishing crime is ... also to deter others" (Yap Teng Chai v. PP [1959] MLJ 205 at p 206; see also Regina v. WN Hammar[1958] 1 MLJ 4). Nonetheless, in assessing sentence all the circumstances of the offence should be considered (Low Oi Lin v. R [1949] MLJ 210). "The court in fixing the punishment for any particular crime, will take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender, the provocation which he received if the crime is one of violence, the antecedents of the prisoner up to the time of the sentence, his age and character"(Mohamed Jusoh bin Abdullah & Anor v. PP[1947] MLJ 130, citing Halsbury's Laws of England (Hailsam Ed) Vol 9 para 365). "Courts are duty bound to consider all these matters before deciding upon a suitable sentence" (Joginder Singh v. PP[1984] 2 MLJ 133, per Ajaib Singh J as he then was). The sentence must be one appropriate to the gravity of the offence (Lee Yoke Choong v. PP[1964] MLJ 138). Accordingly, the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence (PP v. Khairuddin [1981] CLJ 234 (Rep); [1981] CLJ 86; [1982] 1 MLJ 331). Mitigating factors are not to be disregarded, even if the offence calls for a deterrent sentence (Lee Peng Kong v. PP [1986] CLJ 437 (Rep); [1986] 2 CLJ 139). That is not to say though, that "the circumstances of the individual offender are more important than the protection of innocent members of the community from injury to their persons, or from risk even to their lives" (R v. Murukaiyan Rasoo). Public interest must not be relegated to the background. "The correct approach is to strike a balance, so far as possible, between the interest of the public and the interest of the accused" (PP v. Loo Choon Fatt[1976] 2 MLJ 256 at p 258, per Hashim Yeop Sani J, as he then was; see also PR v. Adam bin Mohamad [5 Mallal's Digest (4th Ed, 1997 Reissue) para 2908] and PP v. Mohd Nooh b