NIK MOHD RAMADHAN BIN AB RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Case Significance

Illustrates the limited role of an appellate court on a sentence appeal: where the trial court has properly weighed the sentencing principles and the mitigating and aggravating factors, the sentence will not be disturbed merely because the offender is dissatisfied with it.

This High Court decision at Temerloh is an appeal against sentence in a drug-possession prosecution, and it applies the settled principle that an appellate court will not interfere with a sentence properly arrived at by the trial court. The appellant had been sentenced by the Sessions Court at Raub on three charges under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The charges concerned the joint possession of dangerous drugs, including heroin and monoacetylmorphines weighing 14.7 grams, at the roadside on the main road at Felda Mempaga, Karak, Pahang, in the early hours, offences under section 12(2) of the Act punishable variously under section 39A(2) and section 39A(1), read with section 34 of the Penal Code, together with a further charge under section 12(2). The appellant appealed only against the sentences imposed.

The court's task was to decide whether there was any basis to disturb the sentences passed by the Sessions Court. It reviewed the Sessions Court's reasoning and the submissions of the parties against the established principles of sentencing. It found that the Sessions Court Judge had taken into account the relevant considerations — the principles of sentencing, the plea in mitigation, the submissions on aggravation, and the nature of the offences committed — in arriving at the sentences. There being no error in principle and nothing to suggest the sentences were manifestly excessive or wrong, the court held there was no basis for it to interfere.

The court affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court and dismissed the appellant's appeal against sentence. The judgment illustrates the limited role of an appellate court on a sentence appeal: where the trial court has properly weighed the sentencing principles, the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the nature of the offence, the sentence will not be disturbed merely because the offender is dissatisfied with it.