SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 MarsdenLR 2565

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MOHAMAD NASUHA ABDUL RAZAK – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: W-05(H)-404-09-2017]



The severity of terrorism-related offences demands a proportionality in sentencing, balancing the gravity of the crimes with offenders’ circumstances.

Headnote:The appellant was convicted for four terrorism-related offences and sentenced by the High Court. The first charge's sentence of thirteen years was deemed excessive, leading to its reduction to ten years upon appeal. Other sentences were affirmed. The court emphasized the seriousness of terrorism-related offences and the need for proportional sentencing.

Table of Content
1. initial charges related to terrorism offenses highlight the appellant's actions. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. overview of terrorism charges imposed. (Para 3)
3. court reflected on the nature of terrorist affiliations and requirements for public safety. (Para 5 , 6 , 22)
4. discussion on appellant’s mitigating factors. (Para 9 , 21)
5. sentencing considerations and public interest in the determination of penalties. (Para 10 , 11)
6. importance of upholding public safety against terrorism. (Para 14)
7. determination of the severity of offenses and the appellant's direct involvement. (Para 24)
8. sentencing rationale and proportionality. (Para 25)
First Charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 30 Mac 2016 jam lebih kurang 8.37 pagi, di Lot 3030, Kampung Sungai Tembak, Parit Panjang, dalam daerah Baling, dalam negeri Kedah, dengan pengetahuan telah memberi sokongan dengan cara berbai'ah kepada kumpulan pengganas Islamic State menggunakan nama "Abu Nazrin" dalam kumpulan aplikasi Telegram "gagak hitam" dengan menggunakan nombor telefon 011-24335218 seperti di lampiran; dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah perenggan 130J(1)(a) Kanun Keseksaan [Akta 574] yang boleh dihukum di bawah subseksyen 130J(1) Kanun yang sama."

Second Charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 30 Mac 2016 jam lebih kurang 8.37 pagi, di Lot 3030, Kampung Sungai Tembak, Parit Panjang, dalam daerah Baling, dalam negeri Kedah, telah ada dalam milikan kamu empat (4) keping gambar di dalam telefon bimbit jenis IPhone 5s (Nombor IMEI: 013986000816301) yang merupakan item berkaitan dengan kumpulan pengganas Islamic State (IS), dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah perenggan 130JB(1)(a) Kanun Keseksaan [Akta 574] yang boleh dihukum di bawah subseksyen 130JB(1) Kanun yang sama."

Third Charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 4 Mei 2016 jam lebih kurang 5.01 petang, di CDM Maybank Petronas, Kuala Ketil, dalam daerah Baling, dalam negeri Kedah, telah secara tidak langsung memberikan wang sebanyak RM100 kepada Bukhori Che Noor melalui akaun Maybank bernombor 157166-894675, yang mana kamu mempunyai sebab yang munasabah untuk mempercayai bahawa harta itu akan digunakan, secara keseluruhan atau sebahagian, untuk melakukan perbuatan pengganas, dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah subseksyen 130N(b) Kanun Keseksaan [Akta 574] dan boleh dihukum di bawah peruntukan yang sama."

Fourth Charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 29 Jun 2016 jam lebih kurang 1.02 petang, di CDM Maybank Baling 2, dalam daerah Baling, dalam negeri Kedah, telah secara tidak langsung memberikan wang sebanyak RM100 kepada Bukhori Che Noor melalui akaun Maybank bernombor 157166-894675, yang mana kamu mempunyai sebab yang munasabah untuk mempercayai bahawa harta itu akan digunakan, secara keseluruhan atau sebahagian, untuk melakukan perbuatan pengganas, dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah subseksyen 130N(b) Kanun Keseksaan [Akta 574] dan boleh dihukum di bawah peruntukan yang sama."

[2] The appellant pleaded guilty to all the four charges and was duly convicted. After having considered the written and oral submissions by the parties, the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") sentenced the appellant as follows:

(i) First charge: thirteen (13) years' imprisonment;

(ii) Second charge: four (4) years' imprisonment;

(iii) Third charge: ten (10) years' imprisonment;

(iv) Fourth charge: ten (10) years' imprisonment; and

(v) The sentences to run concurrently from the date of arrest, 28 September 2016.

[3] Being aggrieved by the said sentences, the appellant appealed to this Court urging the reduction of the same.

[4] We have heard the appellant himself and learned Deputy Public Prosecutor ("DPP") at some length. We have also perused the written submissions carefully and gone through the record of appeal in its entirety. For the reasons that follow, we found that there is merit in this appeal in respect of the first charge. We, accordingly, allowed the appeal and set aside

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top