2017 MarsdenLR 379
SESSION COURT (4) (ALOR SETAR)
Najwa Che Mat, J
The Public Prosecutor – Plaintiff
Versus
Muhammad Yusof bin Junaidi – Defendant
CASE NO 62RS-29–09 OF 2016
The court emphasized the need for high standards in identification evidence for conviction, acquitting parties due to weak evidence and procedural failures, while ensuring public interest is prioritized in sentencing.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Sections 395 and 397 - Charge of robbery - Accused found guilty based on the identification by the complainant - Court acquits second and third accused due to lack of evidence supporting identification - Identification evidence deemed weak, especially for the second accused - Identification parade deemed unreliable due to procedural failures - First accused sentenced to eight years imprisonment and three strokes of whipping (Paras 1, 3, 19, 21, 26, 30).
(B) Identification Evidence - Standards for evaluating identification evidence established - Consideration of factors affecting quality of identification including time of observation and visibility - Guidelines inspired by R v. Turnbull (Paras 8, 9, 12).
(C) Sentencing Principles - Public interest as primary consideration in imposing sentences - Seriousness of the offence and offender's past criminal record taken into account when determining sentence - Purpose of deterrence highlighted (Paras 24, 26, 30).
Najwa Che Mat J:
GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT
[1]The three accused were brought to this court for the following charge:-
Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 17/8/2016 jam lebih kurang 5.00 pagi di Kedai 7-Eleven Taman Bandar Baru Mergong, di dalam Daerah Kota Setar di dalam Negeri Kedah dengan niat melakukan samun berkumpulan ke atas Mohammad Khairrudin Bin Abdul Hamid KPT: 910621-01-5225 terhadap harta alih iaitu wang tunai RM101.95, (17) kotak rokok Dunhill red, (3) kotak rokok jenama Marlboro, (1) kotak rokok jenama Mevius, (1) kotak rokok jenama LM, (4) kotak rokok Winston dan sebuah telefon bimbit jenis Samsung Galaxy dengan menggunakan senjata jenis besi. Oleh yang demikian itu, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 395397Kanun Keseksaan
[2]The court had, at the end of the prosecution case called upon the first accused to enter his defence while second and third accused the court had found that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against them thereby acquitted and discharged them from the charge.
[3]Aggrieved by my decision the prosecution filed an appeal on 11 September 2017.
PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE
[4]The prosecution had called seven witnesses to testify with their star witness was PW1 who was the complainant in this case. PW1 testified that on 17 August 2016 at about 5 am he was working at the Seven Eleven outlet at Bandar Baru Mergong together with his colleague named Afiqah Nur Liyana Binti Kamarizuan, came three unknown men wearing mask and each holding an iron rod. One of the men who was identified by PW1 as the first accused had pointed the iron rod toward him. The iron rod was about 50 cm long. After pointing the iron rod the first accused had ordered PW1 to open the cash register at the counter. The first accused took the money in the cash register while the other man took the cigarette from the rack behind the cashier counter. PW1 also said that one of the three men who was identified by him as the second accused took his hand phone brand Samsung Galaxy J1S. Having done their business in the store the three masked men went out quickly and PW1 followed them asking his hand phone back from the second accused. Outside the store PW1 said that all three men had removed their mask and he could see their face before they fled in a car which was parked there. PW1 told the court that the store had three CCTV. The prosecution later produced to the court the CCTV recording through PW5 who is the store manager.
[5]PW6 is the security guard at the Leverage Hotel nearby the Seven Eleven outlet testified that on 17 August 2016 at about 4 am while he was working he saw a commotion in front of the store on the hotel’s CCTV. He went out to check and found PW1 was there. PW1 told him that he was robbed by 3 men driving white Myvi car. PW6 testified before the incident he saw the white Myvi passed through the road two or three time but he did not suspect anything. After 2-3 minutes talking to PW1, one police patrol car passed by and PW6 related the incident to the police and told the police about the white Myvi car driven by the robber.
[6]PW4 is the police officer who was on duty on 17 August 2016. He testified at about 5.10 am while he and his colleague were patrolling in the area of Bandar Baru Mergong they were stopped by two men in front of the Seven Eleven outlet. One of the men was PW6. PW6 informed PW4 about the robbery and about the white Myvi car driven by the robber. He then contacted Pusat Kawalan Daerah to inform about the incident. PW4 immediately made patrols to track the suspects. At Jalan Sungai Baru PW4 saw a car which match the suspect’s car. PW4 with two other police patrol car and motorcycle patrolling unit followed the car and tried to overtake the car. Later PW4 decided to wait at Kemboja traffic lights junction. After 3 minute the suspect’s car came and speeding toward them and tried to hit them. PW4 managed to avoid the car. Later about 50 meters the suspect’s car skidded and hit