Back
2025 MarsdenLR 974
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KUCHING
HEDWIG PETER – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[No: KCH-42H-15-8/2024]
The appellate court upheld the sentencing of the accused to five years imprisonment for drug-related offences, affirming the discretion of the sentencing court to impose consecutive sentences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 15(1)(a) and 39C(1) - Appeal against sentence for drug administration - Accused charged with administering dangerous drugs; previous convictions under DDA - Conviction and five-year sentence upheld - Statutory minimum penalty applied as per 39C(1) - Consecutive sentences affirmed by appellate court - No error in sentencing found. (Paras 4, 20, 25, 30)
(B) Criminal Appeals - Standard of review - Appellate courts should be slow to intervene in sentencing unless the sentence is manifestly wrong or exceeds the lawful discretion of the sentencing court. (Paras 21, 28)
Facts of the case:
The Accused was convicted for self-administering dangerous drugs after testing positive for Amphetamine and Methamphetamine on 21 January 2022, following prior convictions under the same act. He was sentenced subsequently to five years imprisonment and one stroke of whipping, with a two-year supervision period following release. (Paras 3, 4, 9)
Findings of Court:
The sentencing judge applied the correct principles of law, deciding on consecutive sentences based on the nature of the offences and the relevant provisions of law. (Paras 22, 30)
Issues: Whether the sentencing judge erred in law by imposing the sentence to run consecutively rather than from the date of arrest. (Paras 20, 26)
Ratio Decidendi: The punishment was deemed appropriate and consistent with statutory requirements, with no legal basis for altering the consecutive nature of the sentences imposed. The appellate court supported the sentencing judge’s discretion within lawful limits. (Paras 22-30)
Result: Appeal dismissed, original sentence affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeal filed by the accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. brief facts of the case presented. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. legal provisions regarding self-administration of drugs. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. accused's plea for concurrent sentence. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. prosecution's arguments against concurrent sentencing. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's view on sentencing criteria. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. analysis of the sentence's appropriateness by the court. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. principles governing consecutive vs. concurrent sentences. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. judicial discretion in sentencing outlined. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
Introduction
[1] This is a criminal appeal filed by the appellant, Hedwig Anak Peter, against the sentence imposed by the Honorable Sessions Court Judge (SCJ), Tuan Musli bin Ab Hamid, on 23 July 2024, vide Notice of Appeal dated 26 July 2024.
[2] For the purpose of this Grounds of Judgment, parties will be addressed as in the lower Court, whereby Hedwig Anak Peter will be addressed as the Accused and the Public Prosecutor will be addressed as the Prosecution.
[3] In the present appeal, the Accused was charged for administering to himself dangerous drugs, ie Amphetamine and Methamphetamine, and he had two (2) previous convictions under s 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (" DDA 1952").
[4] Upon pleading guilty, he was convicted and was sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment with one (1) stroke of whipping and to undergo supervision for two (2) years after his release from prison. The imprisonment sentence is to be run consecutively after the completion of any imprisonment sentence imposed by other courts prior to the pronouncement of judgment by the learned SCJ for this case.
[5] On 20 February 2025, I heard and considered the appeal and dismissed it accordingly. Dissatisfied with my decision, the Accused filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal dated 6 March 2025.
[6] Below are the grounds of my decision.
Brief Background Facts
[7] The brief facts of this case, which the Prosecution tendered, are as stated at para 9 of the Grounds of Decision of the learned SCJ.
[8] For ease of reference, the brief facts are reproduced below:
(a) on 21 January 2022, at approximately 2020 hours, the Complainant, Inspector Azaha bin Fadli of the Padawan District Police Narcotics Crime Investigation Department, led a police team and arrested one (1) male individual of Bidayuh (Land Dayak) ethnicity (hereinafter referred to as "the Accused") for the purpose of conducting a drug test.
(b) The Accused was escorted by the Complainant and the urine sample was collected using a bottle SN: A0281409.
(c) The police initial screening has shown that the urine sample of the Accused is positive with Amphetamine and Methamphetamine.
(d) The Accused was then arrested under s 15(1)(a) of the DDA 1952 for self-administration of dangerous drugs.
(e) A report was then lodged by the Complainant vide police report SIBURAN/000159/22.
(f) Subsequently, the urine samples were sent to Jabatan Patologi Hospital Umum Sarawak for analysis and the Analysis Report No Makmal 2230000780 dated 1 March 2022 confirmed that the urine sample of the Accused contained Methamphetamine and Amphetamine, which are listed in the First Schedule of the DDA 1952.
(g) After further investigation, it has been revealed that the Accused had two (2) previous convictions under s 15(1)(a) of the DDA 1952.
The Amended Charge
[9] The Accused was charged with an offence under s 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (" DDA 1952"), punishable under s 39C(1) of the same Act, which reads as follows:
"That you, on 21 January 2022, at about 2020 hrs, at Padawan District Police Narcotics Crime Investigation Department Office, in the district of Padawan, in the state of Sarawak, did administer to yourself dangerous drugs, to wit, Amphetamine and Methamphetamine, and you did have two previous convictions under s 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 whereb
