[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MUHAMMAD NUUR FAATHIR BIN YUSOF 2. ) NURZAFRINA BINTI AHMAD MUSTAKIM

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MUHAMMAD NUUR FAATHIR BIN YUSOF 2. ) NURZAFRINA BINTI AHMAD MUSTAKIM

The court accepted the guilty plea and applied a mitigatory discount but held that the seriousness and deterrent needs of drug offences required substantial custodial terms and corporal punishment; balancing mitigation and public interest, the court imposed concurrent sentences backdated to date of arrest: 10 years + 10 strokes (s6 DDA), 2 years + 3 strokes (s12(2) DDA), 1 year (s30(3) Poisons Act).

Citation
WA-45A-38-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; 1st Accused: Muhammad Nuur Faathir bin Yusof; 2nd Accused: Nurzafrina binti Ahmad Mustakim
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 November 2023
Case Number
WA-45A-38-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence Following Guilty Plea / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
First accused convicted on guilty plea and sentenced; second accused charges dropped by prosecution.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Poisons Act 1952, Plea of Guilty Discount, Concurrent Sentences, Corporal Punishment
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Sentencing Prosecutorial Discretion Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Poisons Act 1952 Plea of Guilty Discount Concurrent Sentences +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Muhammad Nuur Faathir bin Yusof

1st Accused

Nurzafrina binti Ahmad Mustakim

2nd Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence Following Guilty Plea / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether and to what extent a guilty plea reduces sentence
  2. 2 Appropriate sentencing for possession of controlled drugs (cannabis, methamphetamine, flualprazolam) given quantities
  3. 3 Whether sentences should run concurrently and be backdated to date of arrest

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the guilty plea and applied a mitigatory discount but held that the seriousness and deterrent needs of drug offences required substantial custodial terms and corporal punishment; balancing mitigation and public interest, the court imposed concurrent sentences backdated to date of arrest: 10 years + 10 strokes (s6 DDA), 2 years + 3 strokes (s12(2) DDA), 1 year (s30(3) Poisons Act).

Court Disposition

First accused convicted on guilty plea and sentenced; second accused charges dropped by prosecution.

Orders

  • Under section 6 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952: 10 years imprisonment from date of arrest (20/9/2021) and 10 strokes of whipping.
  • Under section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952: 2 years imprisonment from date of arrest (20/9/2021) and 3 strokes of whipping.