MUHAMAD KAIRWAZUAN BIN SULAIMAN v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the enhanced sentencing regime for repeat drug offenders under sections 39C and 38B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the limited scope for appellate interference with a sentence that is within the prescribed range.

This High Court decision at Kota Bharu concerns an appeal against a Sessions Court sentence imposed on an offender who pleaded guilty to a drug self-administration offence as a repeat offender. The appellant had been charged under seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), punishable under section 39C(2) of the same Act, for administering to himself amphetamine and methamphetamine, the charge being aggravated by a previous conviction under section 39C(1) for which he had earlier received five years' imprisonment and one stroke of whipping. The enhanced punishment provision prescribed imprisonment of not less than seven and not more than thirteen years together with whipping of not fewer than three and not more than six strokes, and section 38B required that a supervision order be imposed after the offender had served his sentence, for a period of not less than two years and not more than three years. Having initially claimed trial, the appellant changed his plea and pleaded guilty in the presence of his counsel, and the Sessions Court sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment effective from 25 April 2024, the date he was charged, together with a two-year supervision order to take effect on completion of the custodial term, under which he was required to report to a police station on or before the tenth day of each month. On appeal against sentence, the court applied the settled principle of appellate restraint in sentencing, that an appellate court will not alter a sentence merely because it might itself have passed a different one and will interfere only where the sentencing court erred in principle or the sentence is manifestly wrong. Reviewing the sentence imposed, the court found no error warranting interference and considered the sentence reasonable and just, being at the minimum of the prescribed range for a repeat offender. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The judgment is a useful illustration of the enhanced sentencing regime for repeat drug offenders under sections 39C and 38B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and of the limited scope for appellate interference with sentence.