MOHD ALI BIN ZULKIFLY v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Case Significance

Illustrates appellate deference to a first-instance sentence for housebreaking under section 457 of the Penal Code where a persistent offender's record of prior convictions and the public interest justify a substantial custodial term.

This High Court decision at Temerloh is an appeal against sentence following a conviction in the Magistrates' Court for housebreaking. The appellant had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment from the date of arrest for an offence under seksyen 457 Kanun Keseksaan (section 457 of the Penal Code), which addresses house-breaking by night in order to commit an offence. The charge alleged that in the early hours of 1 June 2024 the appellant broke into a fruit shop in Bandar Jengka, in the District of Maran, and stole cash of approximately RM200. The Magistrate had explained, in the grounds of decision, the considerations taken into account in imposing the sentence, namely the appellant's record of past offences, the prevailing trend of sentences for such offences and the public interest. A significant feature was that the appellant had eight previous convictions under section 457 of the Penal Code, marking him as a persistent offender in respect of the very offence for which he was again convicted. On appeal the appellant contended that the custodial sentence of five years was excessive. Reviewing the grounds of decision, the notes of proceedings and the submissions of the prosecution and the appellant, the High Court considered whether the Magistrate had erred in principle or imposed a sentence that was manifestly excessive, bearing in mind the appellant's antecedents and the deterrent and public-interest considerations that a string of similar convictions engages. The court concluded that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was appropriate and should be affirmed, and it dismissed the appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of appellate deference to a first-instance sentence where a persistent offender's record and the public interest justify a substantial custodial term for repeated housebreaking. The court observed that an appellate court will not interfere with a sentence merely because it might have imposed a different term, intervening only for an error of principle or manifest excess, neither of which was made out on the facts of this repeated housebreaking.