Juanis Langgang v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the restraint an appellate court exercises over a first-instance sentencing discretion on a conviction under section 304(a) of the Penal Code, holding that it will not interfere unless the sentence was reached without a correct appreciation of sentencing principles or is disproportionate, and that trends must be balanced against individualised assessment.

This Court of Appeal decision, heard together with the related appeal of a co-accused, concerns an appeal against sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) of the Penal Code. The appellant and two others had originally been charged with murder with common intention under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code over the death of a man at a workers' quarters in Sabah. Having found a prima facie case of murder at the close of the prosecution case and called on each accused to defend, the High Court, at the end of the defence, convicted the appellant and a co-accused of the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) read with section 34, and each was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest, while a third accused, who was a minor at the material time, received a shorter term. The prosecution did not appeal against the reduction of the charge, and the appellant's appeal was confined to the sentence, on the grounds that the mitigating factors had not been individually assessed and that the sentencing trend had not been taken into account. The Court reiterated that a sentencing court must maintain a fair balance between adherence to sentencing trends and the proper evaluation of all the relevant factors, and that its discretion to tailor a sentence to the particular facts should not be unduly fettered by trends. It held that, on an appeal against sentence, the question is not whether the appellate court might have imposed a different sentence, but whether the sentence was reached on a correct appreciation of the governing principles, with regard to all relevant considerations, and whether it is disproportionate. Concluding that the High Court had sentenced the appellant after due consideration of all factors and that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor disproportionate, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence. The judgment is a useful illustration of the restraint an appellate court exercises over a first-instance sentencing discretion.