Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5627
MAHKAMAH RAYUAN (PUTRAJAYA)
CHE MOHD RUZIMA BIN GHAZALI, AZMAN ABDULLAH, AZMI ARIFFIN, JJ
Pendakwa Raya lwn – Plaintiff
Versus
Nur Bakti bin Abd Rahman dan satu lagi – Defendant
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO B-05(H)-85-02 TAHUN 2024
How May Ling (Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Jabatan Peguam Negara) bagi pihak perayu.
Tidak diwakili bagi pihak responden pertama dan kedua.
When considering sentences for migrant smuggling, courts must prioritize public safety and the seriousness of the offence, especially in light of legislative amendments that increased the maximum penalty.
Headnote:(A) International Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 - Section 26A - Offence of migrant smuggling - The accused illegally transported 25 migrants and received a 4-year prison sentence, which was deemed inadequate by the appellate court. The appellate court emphasized that a serious approach is necessary for such offences, given the law's upgrade allowing for a sentence of up to 20 years. (Paras 9, 10, 25)
(B) Sentencing principles - The appellate court asserted that the trial court required more guidance on precedent cases regarding sentencing for migrant smuggling offences. It also stated that the emphasis on the guilty plea was misplaced. Sentencing should prioritize public safety and the severity of the crime over personal circumstances. (Paras 8, 14, 25)
Facts of the case:
The accused were charged for smuggling 25 undocumented migrants, with the lower court imposing a 4-year sentence citing guilty pleas and lesser sentences for similar conduct previously.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the sentence imposed did not align with the seriousness of the offence and the prevailing law changes, thus mandating an increase in the sentence duration.
Issues: The main issues involved assessing the adequacy of the initial sentence, consideration of the seriousness of the offence, and the importance of public safety.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the initial judgment fell short in recognizing the gravity of migrant smuggling as a serious crime affecting national security and public welfare and thus appropriateness in sentencing was lacking.
Result: Appeal allowed; the sentence was increased to 8 years.
Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali HMR:
PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
[1]Nur Bakti bin Abd. Rahman (OKT1) dan Herman (OKT2) ialah dua orang warganegara Indonesia yang tiada sebarang pengenalan diri atau pun pasport yang telah dituduh di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam atas tuduhan melakukan penyeludupan seramai 25 orang migran seperti yang berikut:
Bahawa kamu bersama-sama dengan seorang lagi yang masih bebas pada 09/10/2023 jam lebih kurang 0100 hrs bertempat di Lat 02 darjah 47.899 minit (N) Long 101 darjah 17.816 minit (E) dengan jarak lebih kurang 2.5 BN dari pantai Pulau Carey, Telok Panglima Garang, di dalam Negeri Selangor, telah menyeludup migran seperti di Lampiran A, oleh yang demikian, kamu bersama-sama dengan seorang lagi yang masih bebas telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 26A Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 (Akta 670) dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan .
Lampiran A
Nama:Danial Klau, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Arlinu Gomes, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Ferdynanrus Rame, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Rizky Anata, Pass: E2345602
Nama:Agustian Sitorus, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Rizal Sandi Agung, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Shahruramadhan, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Zulkifili, Pass: E3712612
Nama:Irfan Effindi, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Bukhari, Pass: E2808848
Nama:Mulyadi, Pass: C6270626
Nama:Riyanda, Pass: C8561120
Nama:Moadin, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Ratnawati, Pass: E3057816
Nama:Mardiah, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Elma Mariana Dida, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Habibah, Pass: E3528086
Nama:Indi Widya Lestari, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Lela Tasya, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Nazila Esmi, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Putri Amanda, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Maria Adelin Hoar, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Maria Margareta Seran, Pass: Tiada
Nama:Sutiah, Pass: E0670764
Nama:Wilna Jesika Elisa, Pass: Tiada, Umur : 4 tahun, Perempuan
[2]Setelah pertuduhan dibacakan, kedua-dua OKT mengaku bersalah terhadap pertuduhan dan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi (HMT) telah menjatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan selama 4 tahun yang bermula daripada tarikh kedua-dua OKT ditangkap pada 9.10.2023. Tidak berpuas hati dengan hukuman tersebut, Pendakwa Raya mengemukakan rayuan ke Mahkamah ini.
[3]Untuk memudahkan sebutan, pihak-pihak akan dirujuk sama seperti di Mahkamah Tinggi, iaitu OKT dan Pihak Pendakwaan (PP).
Dapatan HMT Mengenai Hukuman
[4]Semasa membuat pertimbangan, HMT telah merujuk prinsip-prinsip asas berkaitan penghukuman yang diputuskan dalam kes-kes autoriti iaitu, R v Ball 35 Cr App R 164 , Abdul Karim v Regina Public Prosecutor v Jafa bin Daud R v. James Henry Sargeant (1974) 60 Cr. App. R 74, Wan Ji bin Wan Hussin v Public Prosecutor Bhandulananda Jayatilake v Public Prosecutor
[5]Seterusnya, HMT merungut kerana PP tidak ada membuat sebarang rujukan kepada mana-mana keputusan mahkamah terdahulu berkaitan dengan penghukuman menurut s 26A Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 (ATIPSOM) dan beliau perlu membuat carian sendiri bagi mendapatkan kes-kes berkenaan. Lihat perenggan [11] Alasan Penghakiman (AP) HMT.
[6]Dalam AP, HMT telah merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dalam kes-kes Pendakwa Raya v Houssin Sazzad Nurul Islam lwn Pendakwa Raya PP v Marwan Sirait [2017] 1 LNS 649, Public Prosecutor v Suahaili bin Hassan & 1 Other PP v Koh Chin Wah & Anor [2022] 1 LNS 1877, PP v Tamberin Tane & Anor [2023] 1 LNS 2524, PP v Ekok Mualip Baharom [2023] 1 LNS 1928 dan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Mohd Tahir Bahtiar & Satu Lagi v PP
[7]Dalam menentukan tempoh hukuman pemenjaraan terhadap kedua-dua OKT, HMT telah membuat rumusan sepertimana berikut di perenggan [23] dan [24] AP:
[23] The court considered that both the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and saved the court’s time and expenses of the public purse. Furthermore the accused who were arrested on the 9 October 2023, will still have to serve out their imprisonment term of four years albeit with the usual remissions. This was not a case where the accused persons waited in remand for a few years before changing their plea to avoid the consequences of their sentence.
[24] Ac
