MUHAMMAD SYAKIR BIN HISAM

MUHAMMAD SYAKIR BIN HISAM

The court accepted the guilty plea but found the breach of a supervisory order was deliberate and undermined the rehabilitative purpose; supervision could not be re‑imposed as an alternative under the Act once breached and public interest and deterrence justified a custodial sentence within the statutory maximum; a 12‑month imprisonment term was appropriate.

Citation
DI-83D-559-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution/respondent: Pendakwa Raya; Accused/appellant: Muhammad Syakir bin Hisam
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 July 2023
Case Number
DI-83D-559-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence Under Drug Dependants (treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 / Appeal Filed to High Court Against Conviction and 12 Month Sentence Imposed by Magistrate
Outcome
Accused convicted of failing to comply with supervision order and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment; appeal against conviction and sentence lodged to High Court.
Legal Topics
Non Compliance With Supervision Order, Sentence Appeal, Mitigating Effect of Guilty Plea, Deterrence and Public Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sentencing Drug Dependants (treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 Non Compliance With Supervision Order Sentence Appeal Mitigating Effect of Guilty Plea Deterrence and Public Interest

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution/respondent

Muhammad Syakir bin Hisam

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence Under Drug Dependants (treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 / Appeal Filed to High Court Against Conviction and 12 Month Sentence Imposed by Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 12-month custodial sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle
  2. 2 Whether the court could order supervision instead of imprisonment under the Act
  3. 3 What weight to accord the accused's guilty plea as a mitigating factor

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the guilty plea but found the breach of a supervisory order was deliberate and undermined the rehabilitative purpose; supervision could not be re‑imposed as an alternative under the Act once breached and public interest and deterrence justified a custodial sentence within the statutory maximum; a 12‑month imprisonment term was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted of failing to comply with supervision order and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment; appeal against conviction and sentence lodged to High Court.

Orders

  • Accused convicted under Section 6(2)(f) Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment from arrest date.
  • Appeal against conviction and sentence filed to the High Court