Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) MOHAMAD FAIZI BIN MUSTAFA 2. ) NURUL SHUHAILA BINTI NORMUSHAMSHURI 3. ) MUHAMAD JAMIL BIN ABDUL RAZAK

Case Significance

Illustrates the use of comparable sentencing precedents to calibrate a sentence for drug possession within the statutory range under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and the approach to sentencing on a guilty plea to a charge reduced from trafficking.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar concerns the sentencing of an accused who pleaded guilty to a reduced charge in a drug prosecution. Three accused had originally faced charges under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. In the course of the proceedings the prosecution offered the third accused a reduced alternative charge under section 12(2) of the Act, punishable under section 39A(2), of possession of 83.78 grams of methamphetamine; the first charge against the first and second accused was withdrawn, as was a second charge against all three, so that the matter for decision was the sentence on the third accused's guilty plea. The third accused admitted that he understood the reduced charge and the nature and consequences of his plea, and the court convicted him upon it. In fixing sentence, the court surveyed a range of comparable cases involving possession of similar drugs under the same provision, which disclosed a sentencing pattern of imprisonment of between nine and thirteen years together with ten strokes of the cane. Locating the present case within that range and weighing the relevant sentencing factors, including the guilty plea and the quantity of the drug, the court was of the view that a sentence of twelve years' imprisonment from the date of arrest, together with ten strokes of the cane, was appropriate and just, and it sentenced the third accused accordingly. The withdrawal of the charges against the first and second accused meant that the proceedings against them came to an end. In placing the sentence in the middle of the range disclosed by the precedents rather than at either extreme, the court sought a result that was consistent with how comparable offenders had been treated while reflecting the particular circumstances of this case. The judgment illustrates the use of comparable precedents to calibrate a sentence for drug possession within the statutory range, and the approach to sentencing on a guilty plea to a reduced charge.