PENDAKWARAYA Mohamad Ramadzan bin Mohd Yusof

PENDAKWARAYA Mohamad Ramadzan bin Mohd Yusof

The sentences were within the statutory minima prescribed by the Dangerous Drugs Act given the weights of the drugs seized; the two offences were legally distinct (different provisions and different drugs) and therefore sentences were properly ordered to run consecutively from the date of arrest; the sentences are proportional and serve legitimate deterrent and public interest purposes.

Citation
AB-45A-6-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Mohamad Ramadzan bin Mohd Yusof
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 July 2021
Case Number
AB-45A-6-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence Appeal (post Conviction)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentences affirmed and ordered to run consecutively from 12.11.2019.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Consecutive V Concurrent Sentences, Proportionality in Sentencing, Corporal Punishment (whipping)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Sentencing Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Consecutive V Concurrent Sentences Proportionality in Sentencing Corporal Punishment (whipping)

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Mohamad Ramadzan bin Mohd Yusof

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentence Appeal (post Conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively
  3. 3 Proper application of statutory weight thresholds under the Dangerous Drugs Act

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences were within the statutory minima prescribed by the Dangerous Drugs Act given the weights of the drugs seized; the two offences were legally distinct (different provisions and different drugs) and therefore sentences were properly ordered to run consecutively from the date of arrest; the sentences are proportional and serve legitimate deterrent and public interest purposes.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentences affirmed and ordered to run consecutively from 12.11.2019.

Orders

  • Accused sentenced to 8 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of whipping for offence under s39A(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
  • Accused sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and 3 strokes of whipping for offence under s39A(1) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952