Abdul Malik Ishak JC:

This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, Magistrate's Court, Selama, Perak, on the respondent who was charged as follows:

Bahawa kamu pada 25 September 1986 jam lebih kurang 9.15 pagi di rumab No. 31, Peringkatl Feldal jok Redang Panjang Selama, dalam dacrah Solama, dalam Negeri Perak, telah didapati memiliki 0.85 gram dadah berbabaya iaitu heroin dan olch yang demikian itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s. 12(2) dan bolch dihukum di bawah s. 12(3) Akta Dadah Borbahaya No. 3011952.

The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge and was duly convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment to be followed by one year of police supervision.

The facts adduced by the prosecution and admitted by the respondent are briefly that at about 9.15 a.m. on 25 September 1986 a party of police officers headed by Inspector Abu Bakar raided house number 31, Peringkat 1, Felda Ijok, Redang Panjang, Selama and arrested the respondent who was, at the material time, alone and seated on the floor of his bedroom filling powder suspected to be drugs into a plastic straw. The police seized the plastic straw together with three other plastic straws also filled with powder suspected to be drugs. The contents of the plastic straws were analysed by the Government Chemist and confirmed to contain 0.85 grammes of heroin. In the same room the police also confiscated:

(a) a rolled one dollar note;

(b) a cigarette box containing nine empty plastic straws;

(c) nine empty plastic straws;

(d) two small knives;

(e) one small candle;

(f) one plastic packet containing fourteen empty plastic straws;

(g) one green coloured plastic pail;

(h) one box of "Gold Flake" cigarette;

(i) two pieces of silver coloured foils;

(j) a wallet containing fifteen ringgit; and

(k) a bag of clothings.

In short, the respondent who was alone in the said house, was caught red handed with the dangerous drugs.

The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor contended that the sentence was grossly and manifestly inadequate bearing in mind that the respondent had five previous convictions, all of which were for possession of dangerous drugs. It was also contended that the learned Magistrate failed to adequately consider public interest. It was further contended that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the gravity of the offence and was unduly influenced by the respondent's plea of guilty. Lastly, the learned Deputy contended, with great vigour, that the learned Magistrate had failed to take into account the facts of the case.

I must lay stress that the burden of proving an offence is on the prosecution, the duty to determine an appropriate sentence is on the Court. Both the prosecution and the defence may assist the Court by forwarding submissions pertaining to sentence, but the final decision and the sentence to be imposed is within the Court's sole jurisdiction.

The definition of sentence is found in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. It is defined as punishment allotted to persons condemned in a criminal trial. Sentencing can be said to be the act of imposing punishment in such criminal trial.

There is no simple mathematical formula for sentencing. A variety of factors must be taken into account according to the circumstances of each individual case. A delightful analysis of the classic principles of sentencing and general aspects of punishment is set out in Halsbury'sLaws of England (Hailsham Edn.), Vol. 9, para. 365:

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 has received, if the crime is one of violence, the antecedents of the prisoner up to the time of sentence, his ago and character.

Yet another classic is the oft-quoted case of Kenneth John Ball [1951] 35 Cr. App. R. 164. There the appellant aged 23 y