Mamat Bin Mulamat v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the appellate treatment of a conviction for the smuggling of migrants under section 26A of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, affirming an eight-year sentence where the grounds of appeal disclose no basis for doubting the safety of the conviction or the proportionality of the sentence.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns appeals against conviction and sentence for the smuggling of migrants under section 26A of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007. Two accused had each been separately charged under section 26A, the provision that penalises those who engage in the unlawful movement of persons across the border, an offence that Parliament has made punishable by a substantial term of imprisonment. At trial in the High Court, the judge was satisfied that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against each of the accused and ordered them to enter their defence. At the close of the defence case the High Court found each of the accused guilty and convicted them of the offence, sentencing each to eight years' imprisonment. Both accused then appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court, challenging both their conviction and their sentence. The Court considered each of the grounds of appeal advanced by the two accused and concluded that there was no merit in any of them. It was satisfied that the High Court had rightly found a prima facie case, had properly called upon the accused to enter their defence, and had convicted them on the evidence, and that the sentence of eight years' imprisonment reflected the seriousness with which the law regards the smuggling of migrants. Finding that the grounds of appeal disclosed no basis for interfering either with the safety of the conviction or with the proportionality of the sentence, the Court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court and dismissed the appeals. The judgment is a useful illustration of the appellate treatment of a conviction for migrant smuggling under section 26A of the Act, and of the court's reluctance to disturb a conviction and sentence where the grounds of appeal do not undermine the trial court's findings.