MOHD ROSLAN BIN ZAKARIA v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

A statement of the sentencing approach to corruption by a public officer under the MACC Act 2009, deterrence and public interest weighed against mitigation, and of the limited scope for appellate interference with a sentence imposed within statutory limits.

This appeal, one of three heard together at the Kuala Terengganu High Court, challenges both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court on the appellant under section 23(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 for using public office for gratification. The appellant, a public officer, had directed government procurement to a company owned by a close relative through the quotations he prepared and submitted. Across the three charges the Sessions Court imposed imprisonment of two, two and three years together with fines of RM42,000, RM40,000 and RM90,000, with stated periods of imprisonment in default, and ordered the custodial terms to run concurrently. On the sentence, the appellant argued that the punishment was manifestly excessive. The court reviewed the sentencing principles applicable to corruption offences, weighing deterrence and the public interest against the mitigating factors advanced, namely the absence of prior convictions, family responsibilities and payment of the fines. It held that the Sessions Court had acted within the limits permitted by section 24(1) and had taken all relevant factors into account, disclosing no error in principle or in the exercise of sentencing discretion. Underlining that the appellant had not merely failed to declare a conflict of interest but had actively manipulated the procurement system to secure the project for a family company, "penyalahgunaan kuasa yang serius" (a serious abuse of power), the court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence and maintained the Sessions Court's orders in full. It granted a stay of the imprisonment conditional on the filing of a notice of appeal, keeping the existing bail of RM5,000 per charge. The court also observed that the concurrent structure of the custodial terms already tempered the aggregate punishment, so that the sentence could not be said to be crushing when set against the gravity of three separate abuses of public office. The judgment is a useful statement of the sentencing approach to corruption by a public officer and of the limited scope for appellate interference with sentence.