JUDGMENT

Hamid Ismail JC:

[1] In this appeal, I shall refer to the parties as they were in the court below.

[2] The accused pleaded guilty to two amended charges under ss 506 and 427 of the Penal Code in the magistrate's court. Here are the charges:

1st amended Charge

That you on 10 July 2025 at about 01.30am at Lot 322 Lorong Bunga Raya 4, Taman Bumiko 98000 Miri, Sarawak, in the district of Miri, in the state of Sarawak had committed criminal intimidation to Audery Foo Abdullah, NIRC:761125135326 by threatening to kill her using a knife with intent to cause death to her and you thereby committed an offence under s 506 of the Penal Code.

2nd amended charge

That you on 10 July 2025 at about 01.30am at Lot 322 Lorong Bunga Raya 4, Taman Bumiko 98000 Miri, Sarawak, in the district of Miri, in the state of Sarawak had committed mischief with intent to cause damage and loss by breaking window glasses and bed thereby caused to its lawful owner Audery Foo Abdullah, NIRC:761125135326. Hence you had thereby committed an offence under s 427 of the Penal Code.

[3] The learned magistrate accepted the guilty plea and convicted the accused. The accused was sentenced to seven months imprisonment from the date of arrest (10 July 2025) and to a fine of RM1,000.00 in default of one month imprisonment for the 1st amended Charge, and four months imprisonment from the date of arrest in respect of the 2nd amended Charge. The learned magistrate ordered the imprisonment sentences to run concurrently.

[4] The prosecution was not satisfied with the sentences imposed on the accused and had filed an appeal against sentence. The petition of appeal disclosed only one ground of appeal. It was that the imprisonment sentences should run consecutively.

[5] I am guided by the established principle that the appellate court should be slow to interfere with a sentence by the court below unless it is manifestly wrong in the sense of being illegal or of being unsuitable to the proved facts and circumstances (PP v. Mohamed Nor & Ors; [1985] 1 MLRA 692; [1985] 2 MLJ 200b).

[6] Was the magistrate's order on the imprisonment sentences to run concurrently illegal or unsuitable to the available facts and circumstances? Based on the facts of the case in both amended charges, I found it was not. Although the amended charges were related to ss 506 and 427 of the Penal Code, the offences were committed at the same premises, on the same date and time, and on the same victim.

[7] Where Offences are committed in one transaction with regard to proximity of time, place or continuity of action, purpose or design, a concurrent sentence should be ordered. Where on the other hand, separate or distinct offences were committed, consecutive sentences are appropriate (Abu Seman v. PP; [1982] 2 MLJ 338 and Hashim Bin Pawanchee & Anor v. Public Prosecutor; [1988] 2 MLJ 66]).

[8] The one transaction rule and the totality principle as explained by the court of Appeal in Bachik Abdul Rahman v. PP; [2004] 2 MLJ 534; [2004] 2 CLJ 572; [2004] 3 AMR 429 apply with full force in this present appeal:

In deciding whether the terms of imprisonment should be consecutive or commence at another date the court will be guided by the one transaction rule and the totality principle. Pursuant to the one transaction rule where two or more offences are committed in the course of a single transaction all sentences in respect of these offences should be concurrent rather than consecutive (see R v. Saleem [1964] Crim LR 482; R v. Walsh [1965] Crim LR 248). For there to be one transaction four elements must be present, that is to say, proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity of purpose or design (see Jayaraman & Ors v. PP; [1979] 2 MLJ 88 Amrita Lal Hazra v. Emperor 42 Cal 957; Chin Choy v. PP; [1955] 1 MLJ 236). The rule, however, is not absolute.

[9] Ultimately, the learned magistrate did not make any error in ordering the sentences to run concurrently. That order was made in line with the pri