The respondent was charged in the Sessions Court, Kuala Lumpur with an offence of gang robbery under s 395 of the Penal Code (FMS Cap 45). The charge was that on 1 November 1986 at about 8.30 pm at Jinjang Utara, Kuala Lumpur the respondent, together with four other male persons who are still at large, with common intention under s 34 of the Penal Code committed gang robbery, and the amount of money robbed from the complaint was $47.

He claimed trial to the charge. At the end of the trial, he was found guilty. He was convicted by the learned president and sentenced to two years' imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation in the sum of $50.

The Public Prosecutor was dissatisfied with the sentence passed by the learned president and appealed against the said sentence.

The facts of the case may be summarized as follows. On 1 November 1986, at about 8.30 pm the complainant was at a pasar malam in Jinjang together with a friend. While they were there, they were surrounded by the respondent and four other male persons. The five male persons ordered them to go to a nearby field. In the middle of the field the complainant and his friend were asked to squat down. The respondent took $47 cash and an identity card from the complainant's wallet. After that the respondent and his friends left. The complainant went back to the house of his friend's father. There they told the friend's father what had happened. The complainant, his friend and his friend's father went back to the pasar malam. There they saw the respondent and his friends. They caught hold of the respondent and handed him to a detective constable who happened to be near the scene.

The learned president in his grounds of judgment stated that ' ... two years' imprisonment is in my view adequate in this case. The amount that was robbed off the complainant was only $47. Further the accused was a first offender'. He added that there was no necessity to impose whipping as no injury was inflicted on any person. The Public Prosecutor, in his petition of appeal stated that:

(1) the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequately;

(2) the sentence lacked deterrence; and

(3) the learned president did not consider the offence rampant and 'a threat to the security of the public'.

The learned deputy public prosecutor, in her submission, said that the public interest should be protected. Counsel for the respondent submitted that at the time the offence was committed the respondent was twenty years old. The respondent was a first offender. He added that no injury was caused, no weapon was used and therefore no violence. He also said that a term of two years' imprisonment was an inadequate sentence.

In my view, the offence committed by the respondent was a serious crime punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years under s 395. Under this section, the respondent was also liable to whipping.

The offence of robbery is rampant today and in most cases dangerous weapons are used. In some cases the victims of the robberies sustain injuries: see Goh Chong Wee v PP 52-60-1987 (unreported) and PP v Mustanina bin Daing Sinring & Anor 51-125 of 1987 (unreported). In cases of robbery the court must take into consideration the element of public interest. This means that the court must impose a deterrent sentence not only to deter the respondent from committing the same offence again but to deter others from committing the same type of crime. The court is aware that in the present case no dangerous weapons were used and the complainant and his friend were not injured. But the court must not overlook the fact that there were five of them who surrounded the complainant and his friend and committed the robbery. If the court does not impose a deterrent sentence the respondent and his four other friends may commit similar offences and they may even use dangerous weapons and inflict injuries on their victims.

I must add that in imposing sentence in this case, the court mu