MUHAMMAD AISMAT AMIR BIN ZAINAL v Pendakwa Raya

b-05sh-396-09-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 13 January 2025 • B-05(SH)-396-09/2023 • 15 min read
2 cases cited (0 SG, 2 foreign)

Outcome

Tertuduh kedua dibebaskan selepas permohonan Writ of Habeas Corpus yang difailkan oleh tertuduh kedua dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam. [44] Tertuduh kedua tidak dibebaskan sebaliknya terus ditahan di Penjara Sungai Buloh sehingga beliau dituduh untuk kes ini. [45] Tertuduh kedua dipukul selepas ditangkap dan pihak polis memaksanya untuk menandatangani dokumen-dokumen yang beliau tidak tahu isi kandungannya.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (b-05sh-396-09-2023). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (Pertuduhan Pertama) - seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (Pertuduhan Kedua) - Seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1962 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 30(5) Akta yang sama dan di baca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (Pertuduhan Ketiga) - Timbalan Pendakwa Raya mengemukakan Pertuduhan Pertama (Pindaan) untuk Pertuduhan Pertama dibawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama yang dibaca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Kedua-dua perayu menarik balik rayuan terhadap pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga – Mahkamah mempertimbangkan mitigasi peringanan hukuman oleh kedua-dua perayu serta faktor pemberatan seperti kepentingan awam, keseriusan kesalahan dan trend hukuman - Rayuan perayu-perayu bagi pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga dibatalkan - Rayuan perayu-perayu bagi pertuduhan pertama dibenarkan - Perayu-perayu didapati bersalah dan disabitkan di bawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama yang dibaca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - Kedua-dua perayu dikenakan hukuman pemenjaraan selama sembilan (9) tahun berkuatkuasa dari tarikh tangkap (7 Oktober 2020) dan sepuluh (10) kali sebatan.

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure

Judges (3)

Azman bin Abdullah Coram Azmi bin Ariffin Delivered Che Mohd Ruzima bin Ghazali Coram

Counsel (4)

Kit & Associates Firm Chris Kooi Counsel Appellant Ivy Chin Counsel Appellant Tetralina binti Ahmed Fauzi Counsel Prosecution

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Muhammad Aismat Amir bin Zainal Appellant

Case Significance

Illustrates how the Court of Appeal, on an amended charge substituting a section 6 offence for a section 39B(1)(a) trafficking count, recalibrates sentence by weighing mitigation against public-interest aggravating factors and comparable sentencing precedents.

This Court of Appeal decision arises from a set of consolidated criminal appeals (Rayuan Jenayah B-05(SH)-393 to 397 of 2023) heard together, in which two appellants challenged the convictions and sentences imposed on them by the High Court at Klang, Selangor. The prosecution had originally charged both men jointly on three counts: trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 502.9 grams of cannabis, under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) read with seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (section 34 of the Penal Code); a count under section 12(2) of the same Act; and a third count under section 30(3) of the Akta Racun 1962 (Poisons Act 1962). At first instance the High Court convicted on the trafficking charge and imposed hukuman pemenjaraan seumur hidup (a sentence of life imprisonment) together with twelve strokes of the cane. On appeal the Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (Deputy Public Prosecutor) tendered an amended first charge, substituting the trafficking count for a lesser offence under section 6 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, punishable under section 39A(2). Both appellants withdrew their appeals against the second and third charges, which were accordingly dismissed. The three-member panel allowed the appeal on the first charge, set aside the section 39B conviction and the life sentence, and convicted both appellants instead on the amended section 6 charge read with section 34 of the Penal Code. In fixing sentence the Court weighed the pleas in mitigation against aggravating factors it identified as kepentingan awam (the public interest), the seriousness of the offence, and the prevailing sentencing trend, canvassing comparable cannabis precedents in which accused persons who pleaded to the section 6 alternative had received custodial terms in a similar band. It ordered each appellant imprisoned for nine years from the date of arrest (7 October 2020) together with ten strokes of the cane.

Summary

This is the companion appeal to B-05(SH)-395-09/2023 for the same appellant Muhammad Aismat Amir on the second set of charges. The appeals for the lesser charges (drug possession and poison possession) were withdrawn by the appellants. The Court of Appeal struck out these companion appeals.

What sentence did the Court of Appeal ultimately impose after allowing the appeal on the first charge?

After setting aside the High Court's conviction under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the accompanying sentence of life imprisonment with twelve strokes, the Court of Appeal convicted both appellants on the amended charge under section 6 of the Act, punishable under section 39A(2) and read with section 34 of the Penal Code. It ordered each appellant to serve nine years' imprisonment calculated from the date of arrest on 7 October 2020, together with ten strokes of the cane. The appeals against the second and third charges had earlier been withdrawn and were dismissed.

What factors did the Court weigh in arriving at the substituted sentence?

The Court balanced the pleas in mitigation advanced by both appellants against the aggravating considerations it described as kepentingan awam (the public interest), the seriousness of the offence, and the prevailing sentencing trend for comparable drug offences. It referred to several earlier decisions in which accused persons had pleaded guilty to the alternative charge under section 6 and received custodial terms in a similar range, using them as reference points for a consistent and proportionate sentence.

Cases Cited (2)

MY (2)
[2016] MLJU 227 [2017] MLJU 792

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (b-05sh-396-09-2023)