The sentencing for drug offenses must balance public interest with individual circumstances, reflecting the seriousness of the crime.

[1] The Appellant was charged with the offence of trafficking under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('the Act'). The charge reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 22 April 2016, jam lebih kurang 12.40 tengah hari, bertempat di dalam motokar jenis Proton Saga AJS 567, di hadapan hentian sebelah Taiping Lebuhraya PLUS arah Selatan, Taiping, dalam Daerah Larut Matang dalam negeri Perak telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya, iaitu Heroin dan Monoacetylmorphines seberat 213.37 gram (197.07 gram Heroin dan 16.30 gram Monoacetylmorphines) dan dengan ini kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B (2) Akta yang sama."

[2] At the conclusion of the trial after the defence was called, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court at Taiping for the aforesaid offence on 10 January 2018. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence, the Appellant filed an appeal to this Court vide Notice of Appeal dated 18 January 2018.

[3] On 23 August 2018, the counsel for the Appellant made a representation to the Public Prosecutor. The representation sought to reduce the original charge under s 39B(1)(a) of the Act to that of a charge under s 12(2) which is punishable under s 39A(2) of the Act.

[4] The Appellant's representation had been accepted by the Public Prosecutor, and an alternative charge was preferred against the Appellant under s 12(2) of the Act which reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 22 April 2016, jam lebih kurang 12.40 tengah hari, bertempat di dalam motokar jenis Proton Saga AJS 567, di hadapan surau hentian sebelah Taiping, Lebuhraya PLUS arah Selatan, Taiping, di dalam daerah Larut Matang, dalam Negeri Perak telah didapati dalam milikan kamu dadah berbahaya seberat 213.37 gram (Heroin seberat 197.07 gram dan Monoacetylmorphines seberat 16.30 gram). Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39A(2) Akta yang sama".

[5] The alternative charge was tendered before us and was read out and explained to the Appellant who understood the nature and consequences of the alternative charge and the Appellant pleaded guilty to the same. The alternative charge was then marked as exh A.

[6] The Facts of the Case was tendered before us and was read out to the Appellant who understood the same and agreed to it. The Facts of the Case was marked as exh B.

[7] A list of Exhibits was tendered before us and shown to the Appellant who then agreed to the same. The list of Exhibits was marked as exh C.

[8] Being satisfied with the guilty plea of the Appellant to the alternative charge, we proceeded to unanimously convict the Appellant of the aforesaid alternative charge. Before we meted out the sentence on the Appellant, we heard the submissions by the learned Defence Counsel on the mitigating factors favouring the Appellant as well as the submissions of the learned DPP on the appropriate sentence to be meted out. We then unanimously sentenced the Appellant to 18 years imprisonment with the minimum 10 strokes of whipping as prescribed by law under s 39A(2) of the Act wherefor the imprisonment was to take effect from the date of arrest of the Appellant on 22 April 2016.

[9] Aggrieved with the sentence passed by us, the Appellant now appeals to the Federal Court in respect of the sentence vide Notice of Appeal dated 17 May 2019.

Decision Of The Court

[10] The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was 41 years and 4 months at the time of the commission of the offence and was already 44 years and 10 months old when this appeal was heard. He has two children, a girl