PP vs LING LEH HOE - 2015 MarsdenLR 1871

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 MarsdenLR 1871

COURT OF APPEAL KUCHING
PP – Appellant
Versus
LING LEH HOE – Respondent

Table of Content
1. appeal against sentence due to manifest inadequacy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments on sentence adequacy. (Para 11 , 12)
3. court observations on sentencing principles and errors. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. ratio for increasing sentence based on quantity of drugs. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

Mohd Zawawi Salleh JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against sentence by the prosecution. The respondent, Ling Leh Hoe, was charged with two offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (" DDA 1952").

[2] For ease of reference, the charges are reproduced below:

1^st charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 05 Mac 2013 jam lebih kurang 2.15 petang di bilik nombor 1036, Hotel Kingwood, No. 12, Lorong Lanang 4, Sibu, dalam daerah Sibu dalam negeri Sarawak, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu cannabis seberat 390.76 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 39B (1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B (2) Akta yang sama.".

2^nd charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 05 Mac 2013 jam lebih kurang 2.15 petang di bilik nombor 1036, Hotel Kingwood, No. 12, Lorong Lanang 4, Sibu, dalam daerah Sibu dalam negeri Sarawak, telah ada dalam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 MarsdenLR 1871

COURT OF APPEAL KUCHINGPP – AppellantVersusLING LEH HOE – Respondent

Cases Referred (5)

COURT OF APPEAL KUCHING
PP – Appellant
Versus
LING LEH HOE – Respondent