NORAZMAN AZIM BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

NORAZMAN AZIM BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

The High Court upheld the magistrate's sentencing exercise: the magistrate correctly balanced mitigation from early guilty pleas and personal circumstances against public interest, repeat offending and prior conviction; s.292 CCrP grants discretion as exercised and there was no error of law or manifest unreasonableness in ordering the sentences to run separately as imposed; appeal is dismissed.

Citation
JB-41H-71-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/perayu: Norazman Azim bin Abdullah; Respondent/prosecution: Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 February 2021
Case Number
JB-41H-71-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appellate Decision on Sentence From Magistrate Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; magistrate's sentences affirmed
Legal Topics
Housebreaking and Theft (section 457), Commencement of Sentence (section 292 Criminal Procedure Code), Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Plea of Guilty Mitigation, Public Interest in Sentencing, One Transaction Rule, Totality Principle
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sentencing Criminal Procedure Property Offences Housebreaking and Theft (section 457) Commencement of Sentence (section 292 Criminal Procedure Code) Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences Plea of Guilty Mitigation +3 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norazman Azim bin Abdullah

Appellant/perayu

Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appellate Decision on Sentence From Magistrate Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate applied correct legal principles in sentencing
  2. 2 Whether the guilty plea and mitigation warranted concurrent (serentak) sentences or heavier discount
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate correctly exercised discretion under s.292 CCrP to order commencement and sequencing of sentences

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the magistrate's sentencing exercise: the magistrate correctly balanced mitigation from early guilty pleas and personal circumstances against public interest, repeat offending and prior conviction; s.292 CCrP grants discretion as exercised and there was no error of law or manifest unreasonableness in ordering the sentences to run separately as imposed; appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; magistrate's sentences affirmed

Orders

  • Dismissed the appellant's appeal.
  • Confirmed and upheld all sentences imposed by the Magistrate Court including imprisonment terms and one stroke of caning where ordered; sentences to run separately as ordered by the Magistrate.