SOLEH AHMAD HABES AHMAD

SOLEH AHMAD HABES AHMAD

Court balanced public interest and deterrence with mitigation (early guilty pleas, first offenders, remorse) and applied one transaction and totality principles to impose deterrent but not crushing sentences: Soleh Ahmad convicted on two s.26H charges and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for each charge to run concurrently from date of arrest (3.12.2023); Dil Muhammod convicted on s.26H and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment from date of arrest (3.12.2023).

Citation
DA-45SOM-21-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Soleh Ahmad Habes Ahmad; Accused: Dil Muhammod Sultan Ammod
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 November 2024
Case Number
DA-45SOM-21-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Anti‑trafficking/smuggling / Judgment and Sentencing (conviction on Guilty Plea); Prosecution Filed Appeal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Accused convicted on guilty plea under s.26H ATIPSOM Act 2007 and sentenced as stated; prosecution has lodged appeals against sentence.
Legal Topics
Harbouring Smuggled Migrants, Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Application of S.26 H ATIPSOM Act 2007
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti‑trafficking Immigration Law Harbouring Smuggled Migrants Sentencing Principles Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences Application of S.26 H ATIPSOM Act 2007

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Soleh Ahmad Habes Ahmad

Accused

Dil Muhammod Sultan Ammod

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Anti‑trafficking/smuggling / Judgment and Sentencing (conviction on Guilty Plea); Prosecution Filed Appeal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused committed offence under s.26H ATIPSOM Act 2007
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum of sentence given public interest and mitigation
  3. 3 Whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively

Ratio Decidendi

Court balanced public interest and deterrence with mitigation (early guilty pleas, first offenders, remorse) and applied one transaction and totality principles to impose deterrent but not crushing sentences: Soleh Ahmad convicted on two s.26H charges and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for each charge to run concurrently from date of arrest (3.12.2023); Dil Muhammod convicted on s.26H and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment from date of arrest (3.12.2023).

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on guilty plea under s.26H ATIPSOM Act 2007 and sentenced as stated; prosecution has lodged appeals against sentence.

Orders

  • Soleh Ahmad: 3 years imprisonment for each charge to run concurrently from date of arrest 3.12.2023
  • Dil Muhammod: 30 months imprisonment from date of arrest 3.12.2023