NUR MUHD RUSYDI BIN ABDUL RAMAN v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates how appellate sentencing balances a plea of guilty against the gravity and planned manner of an armed gang robbery under sections 395/397 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur is a criminal appeal against sentence in a gang-robbery case. The appellant, tried as the first accused together with a co-accused and another person still at large, faced a charge under sections 395/397 read with section 34 of the Penal Code for committing gang robbery while armed, the punishment for which is imprisonment for a term that may extend to twenty years together with liability to whipping. The robbery took place at around 3.00 a.m. at a house in Precinct 16, Putrajaya, where the offenders, armed with a pair of grass-cutter shears, took cash of about RM9,000, a mobile telephone, a motorcar and other valuables including watches and jewellery from the complainant, threatening more aggressive action and warning the complainant not to lodge a police report. The appellant pleaded guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest on 29 October 2024 together with 2 strokes of whipping. On appeal, the central question was the weight to be given to the plea of guilty as a mitigating factor against the seriousness and manner of the offence. The court, per Nurulhuda Nuraini bte Mohamad Nor J, considered the sentencing principles governing the offence, including the guidance on identifying a range of conduct characterising the most serious instances of an offence rather than confining a maximum sentence to the worst case imaginable, and the appellate authority in Kesavan Baskaran v PP, where a sentence had been enhanced in view of the gravity of the offence, the public interest and the planned manner of its commission. Having examined the charge, the police report and the facts of the case, and weighing the guilty plea against the aggravating features, the court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court should be maintained and dismissed the appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of how a plea of guilty is balanced against the gravity and manner of an armed gang robbery in appellate sentencing.