Dumpangol Bin Borongkas v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

States the appellate approach to a sentence appeal, holding that a court will not interfere unless the sentence was reached without a correct appreciation of sentencing principles or is disproportionate, and that a fair balance must be struck between sentencing trends and the individualised assessment of mitigating factors, here on a conviction under section 304(a) of the Penal Code.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal against sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) of the Penal Code, and the approach to sentencing where multiple accused are involved. The appellant, together with two others, had originally been charged with murder with common intention under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, arising from the death of a man at a workers' quarters in Sabah. At the close of the prosecution case the High Court found a prima facie case of murder and called on each of them to enter a defence, and at the end of the defence the High Court convicted them of the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) read with section 34. The appellant and one co-accused were each sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest, while a third, who was 17 at the time, received eight years. The prosecution did not appeal against the reduction of the charge, and the appellant appealed only against the sentence, contending that the mitigating factors had not been individually assessed and that the prevailing sentencing trend had not been taken into account. The Court accepted that a fair balance must be maintained between adherence to sentencing trends and the proper evaluation of all other relevant factors, and that a court's discretion to tailor a sentence to the facts should not be unduly fettered by trends alone. It emphasised that an appellate court should not interfere merely because it might have imposed a different sentence, but should ask whether the sentence was arrived at on a correct appreciation of the governing principles and whether it was disproportionate. Finding that the High Court had sentenced the appellant after due consideration of all factors and that the term was not manifestly excessive or disproportionate, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence. The judgment is a useful statement of the appellate approach to a sentence and of the balance between sentencing trends and individualised assessment.