Discretion in sentencing must reflect the severity of crime and comply with statutory mandates.

Introduction

[1] Both Respondents were charged before the Sessions Court at Johor Bahru for the following:

Charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 12 April 2017 jam lebih kurang 0005Hrs bersama-sama Yap Huay Chee, KPT: 96040801-508 Di premis Nights City, No.18-01, Jalan Sagu 30, Taman Daya, Di Dalam Daerah Johor Bahru , Di Dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim, telah melakukan kesalahan merompak dengan menggunakan senjata terhadap Kyaw Min Soe, N/Passport MA445009. Oleh yang demikian itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh di hukum dibawah s 395/397 Kanun Keseksaan."

[2] After the charge was read, both Respondent's pleaded guilty. The learned Sessions Court (SCJ) judge imposed a period of imprisonment of two (2) years from date of arrest on both Respondent's.

[3] The Public Prosecutor has now appealed against the term of imprisonment passed on both Respondent's.

Facts Of The Case

[4] The pertinent facts of the case reveal that on 12 April 2017 at around 12.05 pm while the complainant was on duty as cashier at Night City at no. 18-1, Jalan Sagu 30, Taman Daya, Johor Bahru, both Respondents who were ex workers at Night City approached the complainant with a knife and ordered him to hand over some money.

[5] The complainant, was scared and promptly handed over the sum of RM200.00 in cash to the Respondents who then fled the scene. The complainant lodged a police report Setia Indah 3554/2017 pertaining to the incident.

[6] Acting upon information, a team of police detained both the Respondents on 13 April 2017 at Room No. 305, Hotel 91, No. 43 and 45, Jalan Sagu 33, Taman Daya, Johor Bahru. An arrest report Setia Indah 3612/2017 was lodged.

[7] Investigations revealed that the complainant was known to both Respondents as they were ex workers at the said Night City.

Principles Regarding Sentencing

[8] The aspect of sentencing by the courts has been admirably set out by Hashim Yeop A Sani J (as he then was) in Public Prosecutor v. Loo Choon Fatt , as follows:

In respect of sentencing there can be only general guidelines. No two cases can have exactly the same facts to the minutest detail. Facts do differ from case to case and ultimately each case has to be decided on its own merits. In practice sentences do differ not only from case to case but also from Court to Court. All things being equal these variations are inevitable if only because of the human element involved. But, of course, there must be limits to permissible variations.

[9] The passage cited above indicates that the process of sentencing is very much fact sensitive and this fact necessarily endows the Court carrying out this function with some measure of discretion within permissible limits.

[10] Having said that however, it has long been established that one of the foremost considerations in sentencing is that of the public interest. This fact was also not lost upon the learned judge in Public Prosecutor v. Loo Choon Fatt (supra) who went on to hold as follows:

"One of the main considerations in the assessment of sentence is of course the question of public interest. On this point I need only quote a passage from the judgment of Hilbery J in Rex v. Kenneth John Ball 35 Cr App R 164 as follows :-

"In deciding the appropriate sentence a Court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced, not only with the object of punishing