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

2000 MarsdenLR 1626

AUGUSTINE PAUL
TAN LAY CHEN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent



Advocates:
For the appellant - Kuldip Singh; M/s Kuldip Singh & Assocs For the respondent - Lukman Zainuddin, Jabatan Peguam Negara

The sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offense while considering mitigating factors, including a guilty plea and clean record.

Headnote:The accused was charged under s. 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and convicted for possessing illegal drugs. The Sessions Court imposed a 12-year imprisonment sentence. The appeal argued the sentence did not reflect mitigating factors. The High Court found the sentence to be a misdirection in law due to failure to consider the accused's clean record and guilty plea, ultimately varying the sentence to eight years.

Result: The sentence varied to eight years.

Augustine Paul J:

The accused in this case was charged with being in possession of 3.9 grammes of heroin and 33.2 grammes of monoacetyl-morphines under s. 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and punishable under s. 39A(2) of the same Act. On 6 June 2000 he pleaded guilty to the charge. The learned Sessions Court judge convicted the accused and imposed a sentence of 12 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of the rotan. This appeal is by the accused against the sentence imposed.

The facts of the case outlined by the prosecution revealed that on 6 August 1999 the complainant Inspector Haslah bt Bachok together with a police party raided premises number Lot 626, Batu 5, Jalan Gombak. The police searched the premises in the presence of the accused and recovered a blue bag. The bag contained several packets suspected to contain dangerous drugs. The accused admitted that the packets belonged to him. The packets were later sent to the chemist for analysis who confirmed that it contained dangerous drugs as specified in the charge. The accused admitted the facts and the learned Sessions Court judge accepted the guilty plea. In his plea in mitigation the accused prayed for leniency. He said that he has to support his young child and his mother aged 50. His father had passed away. The learned deputy public prosecutor prayed for a deterrent sentence as the offence is serious. In explaining the reasons for imposing the sentence the learned Sessions Court judge said in his grounds of judgment as follows:

Semasa menjatuhkan hukuman saya telah mengambil kira perkara berikut:

Jumlah dadah yang dirampas adalah banyak dan jika berat dadah itu diambil kira tertuduh sepatutnya boleh dituduh untuk kesalahan pengedaran dadah yang membawa hukuman mati.

Memandangkan tertuduh hanya dituduh atas tuduhan pemilikan adalah tanggungjawab Mahkamah untuk memberi satu hukuman yang mencerminkan 'seriousness of the offence'. Oleh itu satu hukuman penjara yang panjang adalah amat sesuai bagi kes ini.

Selain dari itu saya telah menimbangkan hujah pendakwa bahawa kesalahan penyalah-gunaan dadah adalah sangat berleluasa.

Bagi saya satu hukuman yang berat dapat menjadi satu pengajaran kepada orang ramai supaya tidak terjebak dalam gejala ini.

Seterusnya rayuan tertuduh mengenai 'family hardship' tidak seharusnya diambil kira memandangkan tertuduh adalah seorang yang matang dan sepatutnya telah berfikir tentang keluarganya sebelum melakukan kesalahan ini.

Saya juga mendapati tertuduh tidak menunjukkan apa-apa kekesalan atas perbuatannya.

Berdasarkan faktor-faktor di atas saya berpendapat hukuman 12 tahun penjara dan sebatan 10 kali adalah setimpal dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh.

In his argument before me learned counsel for the accused said that the grounds of the learned Sessions Court judge does not show that he has considered the facts that the accused has no previous convictions and that he had pleaded guilty. Learned counsel also added that the chemist report was served on the accused only on the day he pleaded guilty. This, learned counsel said, appears to conflict with the recent judgment of the High Court in Hajar Ishak V. PP 2000 MarsdenLR 1595 where it was held that a chemist report must be served ten days prior to the trial as required by s. 399(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code ("s. 399(1)") even when the accused had pleaded guilty. Learned counsel did however say that though he is raising the objection he finds it difficult to support the judgment relied on by him. The learned deputy public prosecutor said that as drug offences are serious the sentence imposed is reasonable.

I shall first deal with the objection raised by learned counsel with regard to the mitigating factors relied on by him. The learned Sessions Court judge has proceeded on the basis that any sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence. He said that as the weight of the dangerous drugs could have invited a charge for trafficking the fact that the acc

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