The appellate court upheld the sentencing of the accused for gang robbery, affirming public interest considerations and the severity of the crime.

JUDGMENT

Christopher Chin Soo Yin JC:

Background

[1] The above 4 (four) Appellants were jointly charged in respect of the same incident. The matter was heard by the Learned Sessions Court Judge in Sibu on the 29 June 2021.

[2] All four accused were not represented, declined opportunity to engage Counsel and all four pleaded guilty to the charge after the same was read and explained to them. They further admitted to the facts of the case as being correct.

[3] They also pleaded for a lenient sentence and all represented that they were unemployed.

Charge

[4] The Appellants were charged as follows:

"That you together, on 10 May 2021 at about, at around 10.00pm, at a farmhouse in Batu 14, Jalan Oya, in the District of Sibu, in the State of Sarawak, had committed gang robbery against ADI FIRMANATO (Passport B4823962) and KRISBIANTORO (Passport B6849266), thereby all of you have committed an offence punishable under s 395 of the Penal Code ."

Brief Facts

[5] The brief facts of the case can be gleaned from the address of the Learned DPP to the Court in seeking a deterrent sentence (paraphrasing):

"The four accused had committed gang robbery at the premises of the complainant in order to gain access to the bird nest house which is nearby the scene of the incident.

However upon arrival of the four accused at the house, it was empty. Upon reach[ing] the four accused had tied the first and second victim with their hands behind their backs and subsequently beaten the 1st and 2nd victims and rendered them no chance to defend themselves as their movement had been restrained.

The injuries of the 2 victims had been reflected in Pol. 59 ie Exhibit P14 and P15 recorded by Dr Lau Chiu Nee. The 2nd victim had also demonstrated how they were restrained by the four accused and being apprehended on the ground.

Besides that, the four accused did not stop to the point of beating the two victims, they had proceeded to commit theft of the guitar, a motor vehicle and 3 units of mobile phones.

...this case clearly [showed] the cruelty of the four accused when they had failed in their first plan which is to steal valuable bird nest from the bird nest house and proceed to cause hurt against the two victims"

The Injuries Inflicted

[6] Based on the medical report to the injuries suffered by the victims as certified by Doctor Lua Chou Nel (Exhibits P14 and P15).

"KRISBIANTORO (Passport B6849266), sustained soft tissue injury over the right mandibular, right hypochondriac and lower back region"

"ADI FIRMANATO (Passport B4823962) sustained soft tissue injury over the back and anterior chest wall"

Sentence

[7] The Learned Sessions Court Judge ruled on the 29 June 2021:

"I accept the accused plea of guilty and convict them accordingly. Having considered the brief facts, guilty plea, plea in mitigation and public interest and considering that gang robbery is a serious crime as reflected by the penalty provided and that the brief facts show that the victims were attacked by the accused while committing the offence and injured.

Considering those facts, this Court considers it appropriate to impose 10 years imprisonment with effect from today and 10 stroke of whipping against each accused."

Decision On The 17 January 2021

[8] This appeal was called before the High Court in Sibu on the 17 January 2022 where the following decision was read to the Appellants.

[9] There were four individual appeals filed by each of the accused/Appellants. The following decision was common for all four appeals.

"The Appellant has filed his submission under encl 8 and the Respondent under encl 9. There is nothing in the Appellant's submission to convince this Court that the Sessions Court erred in law or in fact or misdirected herself in determining the sentence for this case. The law is also clear that the Appellate Court should not interfere with the sentence of a lower Court merely because the Appellate Court would have been minded to impose a heavier or lighter sentence. In the premises, the Appellant's appeal is