Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) WONG FOOK LOY 2. ) WIN MIN HLIANG 3. ) KAUNG MYAT PHYOE 4. ) LOONG CHAN YOW 5. ) CHAI CHOON FOO

Case Significance

Illustrates the sentencing considerations on a guilty plea to a reduced drug-possession charge under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — the quantity involved, the weight of ordinary mitigation, prevailing sentencing trends and the rehabilitative dimension — in fixing a proportionate custodial term.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru sets out the grounds of sentence for two of five accused who had been charged in connection with a drug seizure on 27 November 2023 at premises in Pasir Gudang, Johor. The accused had originally faced three amended charges, the most serious being trafficking in 7,982.05 grams of MDMA under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), which carried the death penalty or life imprisonment, together with possession charges. On the trial date the accused were offered an alternative charge; the second and third accused pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of possession under section 12(2) of the Act in respect of 75.06 grams of methamphetamine, accepted by the Attorney General's Chambers, and were each sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest. They then appealed against that sentence.

In fixing the sentence the court weighed the seriousness of the offence and the quantity of drugs against the mitigation advanced, which it found to be ordinary and to disclose no special factors warranting greater concession. It had regard to the prevailing sentencing trend and to the guidance that a sentence must fit the background and facts of the particular case, as in Norsharizan bin Junaidi v PP. The court also expressly took into account the rehabilitative dimension of sentencing, holding to the principle that every offender should have room to reform.

Balancing the public interest against the interests of the accused, and expressing the hope that on their release the accused would be able to rebuild their lives as useful members of society, the court was satisfied that the 12-year term was just, appropriate and proportionate, and it maintained the sentence. The judgment illustrates the sentencing considerations — the quantity of drugs, the weight of mitigation, prevailing sentencing trends and the rehabilitative dimension — that apply where accused persons plead guilty to a reduced drug-possession charge in place of a capital trafficking charge.