JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1] The Appellant Faizal Bin Majid was charged with and convicted in the Magistrate's Court of Sabah and Sarawak at Semporna on the 4th June 2025, and the following order was made thereon that the Appellant was found guilty of the charge under Section 41(1) Road Transport Act 1987. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment from date of conviction (4.6.2025) and fine in the sum of RM30,000 in default 1 year imprisonment.

[2] The Appeal is only against sentence. During the Case Management before the learned Deputy Registrar, the Appellant confirmed that his appeal is focused in the sentence of fine only. He sought for a reduction of the fine imposed by the Court below.

The Charge

"Bahawa kamu, pada 30/11/2022 jam lebih kurang 11.30 pagi bertempat di Kilometer 10 Jalan Semporna-Tawau sebagai pemandu lori jenis Nissan No. Pendaftaran SD8686K, kamu telah menyebabkan kematian kerana memandu melulu/merbahaya. Kamu telah terlibat dalam kemalangan jalan raya dengan sebuah motokar jenis Honda City No. Pendaftaran SYG6774 hingga mengakibatkan kematian kepada pemandu motokar tersebut. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 41(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 (Akta 333/87)."

Brief Facts of Case

[3] On 30 November 2022 at about 11.30 a.m., a Honda City driven by Nor Faidah binti Nulhassan, with Nurhidayah binti Abdullah as passenger, collided head-on with a Nissan lorry driven by Faizal bin Majid (the Appellant) at KM 10, Jalan Semporna-Tawau.

[4] The lorry, travelling from the opposite direction, lost control due to brake failure, veered into the Honda City's lane and collided with it. Nor Faidah sustained fatal injuries and died at the scene. Nurhidayah suffered head injuries and was taken to Semporna Hospital before being transferred to Tawau Hospital for further treatment. The Appellant was uninjured. The point of impact and collision debris were found on the Honda City's lane.

Principles on appeal against sentence

[5] An appellate court would be slow to interfere or disturb a sentence passed by a lower court unless it is manifestly wrong in the sense of being illegal or unsuitable to the proved facts and circumstances. And the mere fact that another court might pass a different sentence provides no reason for the appellate court to interfere if the court below applies the correct principles in the assessment of the sentence: PP v. Mohamed Nor. & Ors [1985] CLJU 25; [1985] 2 MLJ 200.

[6] In Public Prosecutor v. Leonard Glenn Francis [1989] 2 CLJ 320 (Rep); [1989] 1 CLJ 972; [1989] 2 MLJ 158, the Court ruled as follows:

"Now, the principles which an appellate Court must observe in an appeal against sentence are these: (1) the Court does not alter a sentence which is the subject of an appeal merely because the members of the Court might have passed a different sentence. The trial Judge had seen the prisoner and heard his history and any witnesses to character he may have chosen to call. It is only when a sentence appears to err in principle that the Court will alter it."

See also Pendakwa Raya v. Prabu a/l Veeramuthu & Ors [2010] 8 CLJ 257; Ganesan a/l Nachiappan & Ors v. Public Prosecutor [2000] 3 CLJ 302; Public Prosecutor v. Loo Choon Fatt [1976] CLJU 102; [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ 256; Bhandulananda Jayatilake v. Public Prosecutor [1981] CLJU 139; [1981] 1 LNS 139; [1982] 1 MLJ 83 and Yit Kean Hong v. PP [2005] 4 CLJ 592)".

Issue:

[7] The only issue for determination is whether the imposition of fine of RM30,000 by the lower court should be disturbed

Evaluation and Findings.

[8] Having considered the arguments of the Appellant and the respondent and considering the whole circumstances of the case, I find that the fine imposed should be disturbed. My reasons are as stated below.

The custodial sentence already satisfies deterrence

[9] The appellant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, which is the statutory minimum under s. 41(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987. That is a substa