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

2025 MarsdenLR 5944

MAHKAMAH RAYUAN (PUTRAJAYA)
CHE MOHD RUZIMA BIN GHAZALI, AZMAN ABDULLAH, AZMI ARIFFIN, JJ
Pendakwa Raya lwn – Appellant
Versus
Nur Bakti bin Abd Rahman dan satu lagi – Respondent
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO B-05(H)-85-02 TAHUN 2024



Advocates:
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

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