MOHD SHARWANDY BIN SOLLAHUDIN v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Confirms the deference an appellate court gives to a properly reasoned sentence in a wildlife-conservation prosecution, dismissing both the convicted person's and the prosecution's sentence appeals absent any error of principle.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar is one of the connected wildlife-offence appeals heard together, and it is instructive on the sentencing dimension of the case, including the prosecution's cross-appeal for a heavier sentence. The appellant had been convicted in the Sessions Court on charges under the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 (Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010, Act 716), including keeping totally protected wildlife listed in the Second Schedule contrary to section 68(2)(a), and had been sentenced to imprisonment on the several charges. Both the appellant, who challenged conviction and sentence, and the prosecution, which contended that the sentence was inadequate, brought the matter before the High Court.

On sentence, the governing principle is that an appellate court is slow to interfere with the sentencing discretion of the trial court, and will do so only where the sentence is shown to be wrong in principle or manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court examined the reasons the Sessions Court had given for the sentences imposed and considered the submissions of both sides. It found that the Sessions Court judge had taken maximum initiative to weigh the mitigating factors against the aggravating factors relevant to the offences, and that nothing in the reasoning disclosed any error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.

Because neither the appellant's complaint that the sentence was excessive nor the prosecution's complaint that it was inadequate revealed any error of principle, the court found no reason to disturb the sentences. As its conclusion records, the appeals were dismissed in their entirety and the conviction and sentence handed down by the Sessions Court were affirmed. The judgment is a useful statement of the deference an appellate court accords to a properly reasoned sentencing decision in a wildlife-conservation prosecution, and of the requirement that both a convicted person and the prosecution show a sentencing error before an appellate court will intervene.