MOHD SHARWANDY BIN SOLLAHUDIN v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the appellate approach to convictions and sentences under the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010, with deference to a trial court's findings on the element of keeping a protected animal and its balancing of mitigation and aggravation absent misdirection.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar concerns appeals against conviction and sentence for wildlife offences under the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 (Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010). The matter came before the court as a set of three related appeals arising from a Sessions Court trial: two by the accused against his conviction and sentence, and one by the Public Prosecutor (Pendakwa Raya) against sentence. In the Sessions Court the accused had been tried on charges under section 68(2)(a) of the Act — keeping a fully protected wild animal listed in the Second Schedule — and under section 86(1)(c) of the Act. Because the accused is a natural person named only as a party, this analysis refers to that party by role.

The grounds of appeal on conviction raised several questions of substance and procedure. The accused contended that the charges were bad for duplicity (kependuaan); that the element of "keeping" (menyimpan) had not been proved; that there were contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; and that the investigation was incomplete. A further ground, common to the appeals, was whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the offence (setimpal).

On conviction, the court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Sessions Court Judge, holding that there was no merit in the grounds advanced and that the trial court's evaluation of the evidence disclosed no appealable error. On sentence, the court examined the submissions of both parties and the reasons given below, and found no error in the sentencing exercise: the Sessions Court Judge had taken maximum initiative to weigh both the mitigating factors and the factors aggravating the sentence. The judgment is a useful illustration of the appellate approach to convictions and sentences under the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010, and of the deference paid to a trial court's findings and its balancing of mitigation and aggravation where no misdirection is shown.