court of appeal criminal appeal no: q-05-123-2009 between

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Introduction 2 ABDUL MALIK BIN ISHAK, JCA DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT [1] Initially, all the four appellants were jointly charged for an offence of murder under section 302 of the Penal Code read together with section 34 of the same Code and if they were found guilty they would be sentenced to death. They were quite lucky. The prosecution decided to reduce the charge. An amended charge under section 304(a) of the Penal Code read with section 34 of the same Code was tendered. By this amended charge, the appellants were jointly charged for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing the death of Kaderi bin Noh on 18.4.2008 at about 11.00 p.m. in front of the mosque at Kampung Tengah Beladin, Pusa, in the district of Sri Aman, Sarawak. [2] All the four appellants pleaded guilty to the amended charge and the learned Judicial Commissioner (“JC”) convicted and sentenced them accordingly. In regard to the first, third and fourth appellants, the learned JC sentenced each of them to 18 years imprisonment with effect from the date of their arrest and that was on 19.4.2008. In regard to the second appellant, a child offender, the learned JC sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment with effect from the date of his arrest and that was on
3 19.4.2008 and her Ladyship also ordered that the second appellant be segregated from the adult prisoners pursuant to section 96(3) of the Child Act 2001 (Act 611). [3] Aggrieved by the sentences imposed on them, all the four appellants appealed to this court. They complained that the sentences were grossly excessive. [4] We anxiously heard their appeals and we substituted their sentences in this manner. In regard to the first, third and fourth appellants, we sentenced each of them to 15 years imprisonment with effect from the date of their arrest and that would be on 19.4.2008. And in regard to the second appellant, a child offender, we sentenced him to 8 years imprisonment from the date of his arrest and that would be on 19.4.2008. We also made an order that the second appellant being a child offender be segregated from the other adult prisoners by virtue of section 96(3) of the Child Act 2001 (Act 611). [5] It is apparent that we have reduced their sentences to suit the facts and circumstances of the case and after carefully considering the principles of sentencing relevant to the four appellants. We shall say more about this later. They are still unhappy with the sentences meted out by us. They are now appealing to the Federal Court (for the first appellant, Muhammad Isa bin Aris, Federal Court criminal case no: 05-159-2010(Q)
Page 1: 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSI
Page 5 and 6: 5 [9] Investigations revealed that
Page 7 and 8: 7 dated 14.5.2009. The probation re
Page 9 and 10: 9 inference from the surrounding ci
Page 11 and 12: 11 responsible for the resulting ev
Page 13 and 14: 13 [24] It is ideal to recognise th
Page 15 and 16: 15 There his Lordship alluded to re
Page 17 and 18: 17 “Whether a person is a hardene
Page 19 and 20: 19 v. Alcock And Others [1967] Crim
Page 21 and 22: 21 370, [1998] 2 MLJ 181; Fu Foo To
Page 23 and 24: 23 [56] We have considered all the
Page 25 and 26: 25 (10) Dato Mokhtar bin Hashim & A
Page 27: 27 (45) Mohamed Abdullah Ang Swee K

court of appeal criminal appeal no: q-05-123-2009 between

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?