JUDGMENT

All three appellants pleaded guilty in the trial court to the following offence:

1

"Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 20.6.2001, jam lebih kurang 3.00 pagi, bertempat di sebuah rumah tidak bernombor, Ladang Yong Peng, Bahagian A, Yong Peng, di dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, dalam Negeri Johor, telah melakukan samun bersenjatakan sebatang besi, sebilah pisau dan sebatang pemutar skru ke atas penama-penama SITI MUAWANAH BTE NORIADI, KPT: 600503-71-5055, SITI AISAH BINTI MISBAH, KPT: 840821-01-5448, SITI ROHANI BINTI MISBAH, KPT: 860203-01-6954, iaitu dengan mengambil wang tunai sebanyak RM570/-, sebuah motosikal jenis YAMAHA Y110SS2, nombor pendaftaran BFV 4345, Enjin No: 3YR2298337N, casis No: HHS-298337, 3 utas rantai leher emas, 3 bentuk loket emas, dan sepasang anting-anting emas, yang mana jumlah kesemuanya RM5,560/-. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 392/397 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama di bawah Seksyen 34 Kanun yang sama".

This is their appeal in respect of the sentence only. The punishment for armed robbery committed between sunset and sunrise is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years, and the offender shall also be liable to be whipped. The punishment imposed on the Appellants, was 7 years imprisonment and 2 strokes of the rotan. Hence, the instant sentence was well within the permitted range. But an appellate court may interfere with the sentence, even if the sentence is within the permitted range. " ... the appellate court is ready to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court upon proof of one or more of the following circumstances: (a) The sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly excessive or inadequate, (b) There is a manifest error either in law or in considering the facts and circumstances of the case, (c) The sentence passed by the trial court is manifestly wrong in the sense of being illegal or of being unsuitable to the proved facts and circumstances, (d) The trial court has given undue weight to some of the evidence, (e) The trial court, in fixing the

2

sentence, had failed to adequately consider all the relevant factors either for or against the offender, (f) The sentence was wrong in law. (g) The unsatisfactory features of the proceedings in the lower court (h) The charge has been hanging over the accused's head for a considerable period, (i) Justice does not appear to have been done." (Civil and Criminal Appeals in Malaysia by Tan Kee Heng at pages 191 - 192). Still it is "a firmly established principle that an appellate court would be slow to disturb the sentence imposed by the lower courts unless the sentence is excessive to such an extent as to satisfy this court that when it was passed there was a failure to apply the right principles then this court will intervene (R v Kenneth John Ball 35 Cr App R 164). According to Hashim Yeop Sani J (as he then was) in PP v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256 at p 257G: 'It is a firmly established practice that the court will not alter a sentence merely because it might have passed a different sentence'" (see Ang Chai Seng v PP [2000] 2 MLJ 35 per Haidar JCA, as he then was). And the Court of Appeal in Ang Chai Seng reiterated what was said by Federal Court in Bhandulananda Jayatilake v PP [1982] 1 MLJ 83, at page 84:

"... this court has said it again and again that it will not normally interfere with sentences, and the probability or even the possibility, that another court would have imposed a different sentence is not sufficient, per se, to warrant this court's interference. For a discretionary judgment of this kind to be reversed by this court, it must be shown to our satisfaction that the learned judge was embarking on some unauthorized or extraneous or irrelevant exercise of discretion."

In Bhandulananda Jayatilake, the Federal Court per Raja Azlan Shah Ag LP (as HRH then was) imparted the following guide:

3

"Is the sentence harsh and manifestly excessive? We would