TENGKU IZWAN SHAH BIN TENGKU AZMAN

TENGKU IZWAN SHAH BIN TENGKU AZMAN

Because the accused committed two separate robberies on different dates and at different locations, the court treated them as distinct offences and, applying s292(1) CPC and relevant authorities, ordered the sentence for the present conviction to commence after the existing sentence and to run consecutively; the sentence imposed was within statutory limits and justified by public interest and seriousness of the offences.

Citation
AA-62RS-35-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Tengku Izwan Shah bin Tengku Azman
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Case Number
AA-62RS-35-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence With Notice of Appeal Filed
Outcome
The court ordered the sentence for the present conviction (6 years imprisonment and 2 whippings) to run consecutively with the sentence in AA-62RS-37-08/2023 (5 years and 1 whipping), resulting in a total of 11 years imprisonment and 3 whippings; imprisonment to commence at the expiration of the earlier sentence.
Legal Topics
Armed Robbery, Consecutive Sentencing, One‑transaction Rule, Totality Principle, Guilty Plea Discount, Public Interest in Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Sentencing Armed Robbery Consecutive Sentencing One‑transaction Rule Totality Principle Guilty Plea Discount +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Tengku Izwan Shah bin Tengku Azman

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentence With Notice of Appeal Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentences for two robberies committed on different dates and at different places should run consecutively
  2. 2 Whether the one‑transaction rule/totality principle applies to require concurrent sentences
  3. 3 Whether s292(1) CPC permits commencement of imprisonment after expiry of an existing sentence

Ratio Decidendi

Because the accused committed two separate robberies on different dates and at different locations, the court treated them as distinct offences and, applying s292(1) CPC and relevant authorities, ordered the sentence for the present conviction to commence after the existing sentence and to run consecutively; the sentence imposed was within statutory limits and justified by public interest and seriousness of the offences.

Court Disposition

The court ordered the sentence for the present conviction (6 years imprisonment and 2 whippings) to run consecutively with the sentence in AA-62RS-37-08/2023 (5 years and 1 whipping), resulting in a total of 11 years imprisonment and 3 whippings; imprisonment to commence at the expiration of the earlier sentence.

Orders

  • Sentence of 6 years imprisonment and 2 whippings imposed for AA-62RS-35-08/2023
  • Order that the sentence for AA-62RS-35-08/2023 run consecutively with AA-62RS-37-08/2023 and commence at the expiration of that earlier sentence