MOHD SHARWANDY BIN SOLLAHUDIN

MOHD SHARWANDY BIN SOLLAHUDIN

The High Court held that the charges under s68(2)(a) and s86(1)(c) are distinct offences (general keeping vs keeping in a manner causing suffering) so no double jeopardy arises; the prosecution adduced sufficient prima facie evidence of 'menyimpan' by demonstrating custody/control of the 81 pangolins through rental/payment records, surveillance, presence and conduct of appellant, and seizure evidence; minor inconsistencies and alleged investigative gaps were immaterial; sentencing was within the trial court's discretionary range — accordingly all appeals were dismissed and convictions and sentences were affirmed.

Citation
KA-42ES-2-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu/appellant: MOHD SHARWANDY BIN SOLLAHUDIN; Respondent/prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 March 2025
Case Number
KA-42ES-2-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence Under Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 / Appellate Judgment at High Court on Appeals From Sessions Court
Outcome
All appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences by the Sessions Court (HMS) affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession/keeping of Protected Wildlife, Animal Cruelty/causing Suffering, Double Jeopardy/duplicity, Burden of Proof and Evidential Sufficiency, Adequacy of Investigation, Sentencing Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Wildlife Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Statutory Interpretation Possession/keeping of Protected Wildlife Animal Cruelty/causing Suffering Double Jeopardy/duplicity +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MOHD SHARWANDY BIN SOLLAHUDIN

Perayu/appellant

PENDAKWA RAYA

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence Under Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 / Appellate Judgment at High Court on Appeals From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the multiple charges constituted duplicity/double jeopardy
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved the element of 'menyimpan' (keeping/possession)
  3. 3 Whether contradictions in prosecution witnesses fatally undermined the prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the charges under s68(2)(a) and s86(1)(c) are distinct offences (general keeping vs keeping in a manner causing suffering) so no double jeopardy arises; the prosecution adduced sufficient prima facie evidence of 'menyimpan' by demonstrating custody/control of the 81 pangolins through rental/payment records, surveillance, presence and conduct of appellant, and seizure evidence; minor inconsistencies and alleged investigative gaps were immaterial; sentencing was within the trial court's discretionary range — accordingly all appeals were dismissed and convictions and sentences were affirmed.

Court Disposition

All appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences by the Sessions Court (HMS) affirmed

Orders

  • Appeals KA-42ES-1-06/2024, KA-42ES-2-06/2024 and KA-42ES-3-06/2024 are dismissed
  • Conviction on counts under s68(2)(a) Akta 716 and s86(1)(c) Akta 716 are affirmed