TAN KONG KUAN

JG-83D-501-08/2022 Kand. 12 04/01/2023 10:20:55 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET KLUANG DI DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TA’ZIM PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO. JG-83D-501-08/2022 PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN TAN KONG KUAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENGENALAN [1] OKT telah dipertuduhkan di Mahkamah Majistret Kluang bagi kesalahan di bawah s.12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 sepertimana pertuduhan pindaan berikut: Bahawa kamu pada 08/08/2022 jam lebih kurang 1350 hrs di Lorong belakang rumah No 30, Jalan Kasuari, Taman Sam Hoe, dalam Daerah Kluang, dalam Negeri Johor, telah ada dalam milikan kamu berat bersih bahan 0.02 gram yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Heroin dan Monoacetylmorphines. Dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama. [2] OKT pada mulanya telah dituduh pada 10 Ogos 2022 dan kes telah ditangguhkan ke tarikh 5 Oktober 2022 bagi membolehkan pihak pendakwaan mendapatkan laporan kimia. Namun pada tarikh 5 Oktober 2022, OKT tidak dikemukakan ke Mahkamah kerana telah dipindahkan dari tempat tahanan asal iaitu dari Pusat Koreksional Johor Bahru ke Penjara Kluang selepas disabitkan atas kesalahan lain. Mahkamah kemudiannya telah menetapkan tarikh sebutan baru pada 21 November 2022. 1 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [3] Pada tarikh 21 November 2022, OKT telah dikemukakan. Puan TPR Yang Bijaksana telah mengemukakan pertuduhan pindaan yang telah ditandakan sebagai P2, dan selanjutnya membuat serahan laporan kimia kepada OKT selaras dengan kehendak s.399 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah. Mahkamah telah memberikan tarikh sebutan lanjut pada 28 Disember 2022 sebagai tarikh sebutan untuk fakta dan hukuman. [4] Pada tarikh berkenaan, pertuduhan pindaan beserta hukuman telah dibacakan dan diterangkan kepada OKT di dalam Bahasa Mandarin oleh Jurubahasa Cina Mahkamah atas permohonan OKT sendiri. OKT mengesahkan faham pertuduhan, serta mengaku salah dan faham sebab dan akibat pengakuan. Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa OKT telah memahami pertuduhan dan hukuman serta mengaku salah tanpa syarat dan telah menerima pengakuan bersalah OKT. [5] Pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan exhibit berikut: P3 – Fakta Kes (telah dibacakan dalam Bahasa Mandarin dan diakui) P4 – Laporan polis P5 – Laporan kimia P6A-E – 5 keping gambar tempat kejadian P7 – 1 keping gambar barang kes P8 – Senarai geledah P9 – Sampul berseal JKM yang di dalamnya mengandungi: P10 – Plastik bertanda A1 [6] OKT di dalam rayuan mitigasinya memohon hukuman penjara dikenakan berjalan serentak dengan hukuman kesalahan s.39C Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang sedang dijalani. Manakala Puan TPR Yang Bijaksana telah mengemukakan rekod sabitan OKT melalui semakan SPRJ yang ditandakan sebagai P11 dan seterusnya memohon suatu hukuman yang setimpal diberikan. 2 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [7] Setelah mengambil kira rayuan dan hujahan kedua-dua pihak, Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini telah menjatuhkan hukuman 10 bulan penjara selepas selesai hukuman yang sedang dijalani OKT bagi kes JG-62D-50- 08/2022. ALASAN KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH [8] Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini telah membuat semakan ke atas kes JG-62D- 50-08/2022. Pertuduhan yang dihadapi oleh OKT bagi kes berkenaan adalah seperti berikut: Bahawa kamu pada 29/05/2022 jam lebih kurang 3.30 petang di Pejabat Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik, Ibupejabat Polis Daerah Kluang, dalam Daerah Kluang, dalam Negeri Johor, telah menggunakan dadah berbahaya jenis “Morphine”. Dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang mana kamu dari sebelum melakukan kesalahan ini telah di sabitkan dengan dua kesalahan di bawah Seksyen dan Akta yang sama pada: 1. 04/12/2012 di Mahkamah Majistret Kluang, Nombor Kes: 83-882- 12/2012. Hukuman: 5 bulan penjara dari 24/09/2012. 2. 02/04/2018 di Mahkamah Majistret Kluang, Nombor Kes: JG-83D- 159-04/2018. Hukuman: 5 bulan penjara dan 2 tahun pengawasan polis. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39C(1)(b) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh di hukum di bawah seksyen 39C(1) Akta yang sama. [9] OKT telah mengaku bersalah dan telah disabitkan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen Kluang pada 24 Ogos 2022. OKT telah dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 5 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan 1 sebatan serta 2 tahun pengawasan. 3 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [10] Berkenaan dengan tarikh permulaan hukuman penjara, s.282(d) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah memperuntukkan seperti berikut: Section 282. Provisions as to execution of sentences of imprisonment. With regard to sentences of imprisonment the following provisions shall be followed: (a) … (b) … (c) … (d) every sentence of imprisonment shall take effect from the date on which it was passed unless the Court passing the sentence otherwise directs. [11] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Bachik Bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor [2004] 2 MLJ 534 telah memutuskan: “Section 282(d) prescribes the general rule that a sentence of imprisonment shall take effect from the date on which it was passed unless the court passing the sentence otherwise directs.” [12] Berdasarkan kepada nas di atas, adalah jelas bahawa Mahkamah Bicara mempunyai budi bicara untuk menentukan sama ada tarikh pemenjaraan bermula dari tarikh sabitan atau sebaliknya. [13] Di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini, OKT telah diperintahkan untuk menjalani hukuman pemenjaraan secara berasingan. Tetapi memandangkan OKT di dalam kes ini memohon supaya hukuman bagi kedua-dua kesnya dijalankan secara serentak, penelitian wajar dibuat kepada prinsip hukuman berjalan serentak. 4 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [14] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes di dalam kes Bachik Bin Abdul Rahman [supra] menyatakan: “7 The combined effect of s 282 and s 292 is that unless the court imposing a sentence says anything to the contrary, the sentence runs from the date on which it was passed (see Ooi Sim Yim v Public Prosecutor [1990] 1 MLJ 88). The exercise of the discretion to determine the date of commencement of the sentence of imprisonment is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. In deciding whether the terms of imprisonment should be consecutive or commence at another date, the court will be guided by the one transaction rule and the totality principle. Pursuant to the one transaction rule where two or more offences are committed in the course of a single transaction, all sentences in respect of these offences should be concurrent rather than consecutive (see R v Saleem (1964) Crim LR 482; R v Walsh (1965) Crim LR 248). For there to be one transaction four elements must be present, that is to say, proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity of purpose or design (see Jayaraman & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1979] 2 MLJ 88; Amrita Lal Hazra v Emperor 42 Cal 957; Chin Choy v Public Prosecutor [1955] 1 MLJ 236). The rule, however, is not absolute. As Yong Pung How CJ said in Kanagasuntharam v Public Prosecutor [1992] 1 SLR 81 at p 83: The English courts have recognized that there are situations where consecutive sentences are necessary to discourage the type of criminal conduct being punished: see R v Faulkner (1972) 56 Cr App R 594, R v Wheatley (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 417 and R v Skinner (1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 166. The applicability of the exception is said to depend on the facts of the case and the circumstances of the offence. It is stated in broad and general terms and although it may be criticized as vague, it is necessarily in such terms in order that the sentencer may impose an 5 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal appropriate sentence in each particular case upon each particular offender at the particular time the case is heard. 8 In explaining the totality principle, his Lordship referred (at p 85) to the view of DA Thomas in Principles of Sentencing (2nd Ed) at pp 57–58: The many decisions of the court in which the totality principle has been applied to explain the reduction of a cumulative sentence made up of correctly calculated individual parts suggest that the principle has two limbs. A cumulative sentence may offend the totality principle if the aggregate sentence is substantially above the normal level of sentences for the most serious of the individual offences involved, or if its effect is to impose on the offender 'a crushing sentence' not in keeping with his records and prospects.” [15] Dapat difahami daripada nas di atas, hukuman serentak hanya boleh diberikan tertakluk kepada dua syarat. Syarat yang pertama, kedua-dua kes tersebut perlulah merupakan sebahagian daripada satu transaksi yang sama. Manakala syarat yang kedua pula, prinsip jumlah keseluruhan atau totality principle. [16] Untuk syarat yang pertama, kedua-dua kes ini perlu diteliti sama ada ianya merupakan sebahagian daripada satu transaksi yang sama ataupun tidak. Suatu transaksi yang sama perlu dibuktikan dengan menunjukkan: “For there to be one transaction four elements must be present, that is to say, proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity of purpose or design.” [17] Perbandingan yang dibuat di antara kedua kes di atas mendapati seperti berikut: 6 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JG-83D-501-08/2022 JG-62D-50-08/2022 Tarikh dan masa 08/08/2022 jam lebih 29/05/2022 jam lebih kurang 1350 hrs kurang 3.30 petang Tempat Kejadian Lorong belakang Pejabat Bahagian rumah No 30, Jalan Siasatan Jenayah Kasuari, Taman Sam Narkotik, Ibupejabat Hoe Polis Daerah Kluang Jenis kesalahan Milikan dadah Menggunakan dadah berbahaya. [18] Oleh yang demikian, adalah terang lagi bersuluh bahawa kedua-dua kes ini bukanlah sebahagian daripada satu transaksi yang sama. Terdapat perbezaan masa dan tarikh yang melebihi 2 bulan bagi kedua-dua kes, serta melibatkan tempat kejadian yang berbeza. Jadi, adalah tidak wajar untuk hukuman bagi kedua-dua kes yang tidak merupakan transaksi yang sama untuk dijalankan secara serentak. [19] Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini juga merujuk kes Public Prosecutor v Yap Huat Heng [1985] 2 MLJ 414, di mana YA Hakim Shaik Daud telah memutuskan: “Where two or more distinct offences had been committed, sentences of imprisonment should not be made to run concurrently. It should only be made concurrent when an offender had been convicted of a principal and a subsidiary offence. In all other cases sentences should be made to run consecutively.” 7 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [20] Berkenaan syarat yang kedua iaitu totality principle atau prinsip jumlah keseluruhan pula, rujukan boleh dibuat kepada kes Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) R. v John Alistair Faulkner (1972) 56 Cr. App. R. 594 di mana Lord Chief Justice telah menyatakan: “First of all as regards the sentences being consecutive, it should be recognised now that where an offender carries a firearm, with intent, when pursuing his criminal intention, he can expect and will receive a sentence of imprisonment consecutive to that which would otherwise be imposed upon him and this will be attributed to the use of the firearm. It is very important that this matter of sentencing practice should be appreciated at a time when every possible course must be taken by the courts to persuade people not to carry firearms. Therefore in this case where the second sentence of three years was made consecutive and was one relating to the carrying of a firearm, this Court would wish to stress that that was a perfectly proper approach to the problem, and one which should be followed. However, at the end of the day, as one always must, one looks at the totality and asks whether it was too much.” [21] OKT telah dikenakan hukuman 5 tahun pemenjaraan bagi kesalahan menggunakan dadah bagi kes JG-62D-50-08/2022 dan 10 bulan penjara bagi kesalahan milikan dadah bagi kes JG-83D-501-08/2022. Oleh itu jumlah keseluruhan hukuman penjara yang dikenakan ke atas OKT ialah 5 tahun 10 bulan atau 70 bulan. Untuk menentukan sama ada jumlah 70 bulan pemenjaraan ini adalah keterlaluan atau tidak, Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini juga mengambil kira kesalahan yang dilakukan iaitu kesalahan penyalahgunaan dadah dan kesalahan lampau OKT. PRINSIP PENGHUKUMAN DI DALAM KES DADAH [22] Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini merujuk kepada kes klasik R v Sargeant (James Henry) (1974) 60 Cr. App. R. 74 yang sering dipetik oleh Mahkamah di dalam membincangkan prinsip-prinsip penghukuman, di mana Court of Appeal melalui penghakiman Lord Justice Lawton memutuskan: 8 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “What ought the proper penalty to be? We have thought it necessary not only to analyse the facts, but to apply to those facts the classical principles of sentencing. Those classical principles are summed up in four words: retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. Any judge who comes to sentence ought always to have those four classical principles in mind and to apply them to the facts of the case to see which of them has the greatest importance in the case with which he is dealing. [23] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Pendakwa Raya lwn Yap Sooi Long [2016] 3 MLJ 467 semasa mempertimbangkan hukuman bagi kes s.12(2) yang boleh dihukum di bawah s.39A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 telah memutuskan: “[17] Jenayah seperti yang dilakukan oleh responden semestinya terjumlah dalam kategori jenayah yang mewajarkan hukuman berbentuk ‘retributive’ serta ‘deterrent’ yang mencerminkan ‘the public’s intolerance and abhorrence’ terhadap jenayah yang sedemikian. Lawton LJ dalam kes R v Sargent (1974) 60 Cr App R 74 di ms 77 menyatakan: There is however, another aspect of retribution which is overlooked: it is that society through the courts must show its abhorrence of particular types of crime and the only way of which they, the courts can do this is by the sentence they pass. The courts do not have to reflect public opinion. On the other hand, courts must not disregard it. Perhaps the main duty of the court is to lead public opinion. [18] Pada hemat kami, jenayah yang dilakukan oleh responden semestinya terjumlah dalam kategori jenayah yang dimaksudkan oleh Lawton LJ di atas. Ini kerana seperti yang dikatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Tia Ah Leng v Public Prosecutor [2004] 4 MLJ 249; [2004] 4 CLJ 77: 9 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal The Government and the Legislature have taken very serious views in the abuse of usage of dangerous drugs. Drug addiction are rampant and the Government as well as the Legislative have tried to curb these addictions especially amongst youths but met with little success. Death sentences and heavy penalties have been introduced but we find drug addicts everywhere. The addiction of drugs have led to other offences such as thefts, burglary and snatch theft. Some of these offences lead to serious consequences. We have read in the newspapers that some addicts have gone to the extent of hurting their own families such as their mothers, sisters and grandmothers in order to get some money to purchase drugs to support their addictions.” [24] Begitu juga Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes PP v. Ling Leh Hoe [2015] 4 CLJ 869 memutuskan: “[20] Further, offences relating to possession of dangerous drugs are a major national problem. Public interest called for a deterrent sentence in such cases. This view finds support in the DDA 1952 itself which prescribes different penalties depending on the weight of drugs involved. Under s. 39A(1) of the DDA 1952, it is prescribed that where the cannabis is more than 20g but less than 50g, the sentence imposed shall be between two years and five years, with whipping between three strokes and nine strokes. Under s. 39A(2) of the DDA 1952, where the weight of the cannabis is 50g or more the sentence shall be imprisonment for 30 years or a term which shall not be less than five years with whipping of not less than ten strokes… [22] The learned DPP, in her written submission, also addressed on the trend of sentencing in similar cases. She argued that based on the statistics, the courts are always consistent in imposing a deterrent sentence in drugs possession cases. She forcefully contended that on the 10 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal facts of this case, the sentence of 80 months (six years eight months) imprisonment and ten strokes of whipping imposed against the respondent was manifestly inadequate. [23] We find ourselves in agreement with the learned DPP. The decisions of the Federal Court in cases of PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457, Haryadi Dadeh v. PP [2000] 3 CLJ 553; [2000] 4 MLJ 71, Subramaniam Arumugam v. PP [2000] 2 CLJ 1; [2000] 2 MLJ 193 clearly show that deterrent sentences should be imposed for the offences of drug possession... [24] Based on the decisions in the above cases, it is clear that a heavier sentence ought to be imposed on the respondent. We find that neither the guilty plea of the respondent nor the fact that the respondent is a first offender can be considered too favourable for the respondent. Clearly, the sentence imposed by the High Court was not in conformity with the sentencing trend for offences under s. 39A(2) of the Act. [25] As has been said repeatedly and correctly, abuse of dangerous drugs is a scourge to our society leading to many spinoff incidences of criminal behaviour. It is a purveyor of death. Therefore, one could hardly deny that drugs offenders are a threat to our society from which we must be protected, sometimes by means of lengthy custodial sentence.” [25] Mahkamah perlu memberikan hukuman yang menekankan elemen kecaman dan kutukan sebagai perlindungan kepada masyarakat umum daripada bahaya dadah. Ini merupakan suatu penjagaan kepada kepentingan awam. Ini ditekankan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Abdul Halim Ishak & satu lagi [2013] 9 CLJ 559: “[17] Melihat dengan teliti keputusan-keputusan mahkamah-mahkamah Malaysia berhubung dengan hukuman yang dijatuhkan terhadap pesalah-pesalah yang berkaitan dengan dadah berbahaya, aliran sama 11 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ("common thread") yang ketara dalam kes-kes tersebut ialah bahawa hukuman yang membawa kesan pencegahan perlu dijatuhkan dan kepentingan awam perlu diutamakan. Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Adam Atan v. PP [2009] 1 CLJ 33, telah sekali lagi menegaskan prinsip ini melalui Gopal Sri Ram HMR (sebagaimana beliau ketika itu), apabila beliau berkata di ms. 36: [7] There is no gain say that drug offenders are a menace to society. They are nothing less than serpents on the front lawn of justice and should be dealt with accordingly. Everyday we read in the newspapers about the efforts of the law enforcement agencies in seizing large quantities of dangerous drugs and of the deleterious nature of these drugs which is visited upon members of our society, in particular our youth. The courts will be failing in their duty if they do not take a serious view towards the offences of this nature. The sentence imposed must not only be commensurate with the offence in this case but must also stop would be offenders dead in their tracks from committing it. [18] Kesan buruk gejala dadah kepada negara dan orang awam telah diambil perhatian serius oleh hakim-hakim terbilang Malaysia semenjak tahun 1970-an lagi. Dalam kes-kes Loh Hock Seng & Anor v. PP [1979] 1 LNS 48; [1980] 2 MLJ 13 dan PP v. Loo Choo Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ 256, misalnya, penekanan diberikan bahawa hukuman yang mempunyai kesan pencegahan perlu dijatuhkan terhadap pesalah- pesalah dadah. Ini adalah sejajar dengan hasrat Kerajaan dan Parlimen yang telah mengambil pelbagai langkah serius untuk mencegah dan mengawal ancaman pengedaran dan penggunaan dadah serta jenayah- jenayah yang berkaitan dengannya. Oleh itu, mahkamah perlu memainkan peranannya dengan menjatuhkan hukuman yang berat dan mencegah seperti yang ditetapkan oleh Akta. 12 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [19] Pada pandangan mahkamah ini, hukuman berat juga perlu dijatuhkan terhadap pesalah-pesalah dadah bagi menekankan elemen kutukan atau kecaman ("denunciation"). Elemen kutukan boleh dijelaskan seperti berikut: 3.9 Denunciation, in the context of sentencing, is achieved by the imposition of a sentence the severity of which makes a statement that the offence in question is not to be tolerated by society either in general or in a specific instance. The statement made may be directed at any combination of the public at large, victims, potential offenders and individual offenders. In part its aims are similar to that of deterrence. It has also been seen to be associated with retribution. (Lihat Law Reform Commission New South Wales, supra). [20] Dalam konteks penghukuman terhadap pesalah-pesalah dadah, pada pandangan mahkamah ini, justifikasi bagi prinsip "denunciation" dijadikan salah satu tujuan penghukuman ialah untuk menunjukkan bahawa hukuman berat yang dijatuhkan itu adalah mencerminkan "a symbolic, collective statement that the offender's conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society's basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law" (lihat Ryan v. The Queen [2001] 206 CLR 267, di ms. 118). Pada pandangan mahkamah, elemen kutukan perlu diberi penekanan kerana perbuatan pesalah atau pesalah-pesalah tersebut telah menjejaskan kesejahteraan masyarakat yang merupakan nilai-nilai murni untuk semua ahli masyarakat. Mereka telah disifatkan oleh hakim-hakim terbilang Malaysia sebagai "engineers of evil and pedlars of death" (per Raja Azlan Shah, CJ Malaya (sebagaimana Baginda ketika itu) dalam kes Loh Hock Seng & Anor v. PP (supra ) dan "a scourge to society" (per Abdool Cader J (sebagaimana beliau ketika itu) dalam kes PP v. Yeoh Eng Khuan [1975] 1 LNS 138; [1976] 1 MLJ 258). Kerajaan pula menganggap mereka sebagai "peniaga maut najis dadah". 13 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [21] Tidak dapat dipertikaikan bahawa kesalahan yang berkaitan dengan dadah adalah merupakan satu kesalahan yang serius yang boleh mengancam keselamatan dan ketenteraman negara serta kesihatan umum. Dadah telah diisytiharkan sebagai musuh nombor satu negara oleh kerajaan pada tahun 1983. Justeru, jika mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman yang ringan kepada satu kesalahan yang ditetapkan melalui Parlimen sebagai serius, sudah tentu perlindungan sewajarnya tidak dapat diberikan kepada orang ramai. Dalam kes Yusmarin Samsudin v. PP (supra) mahkamah menegaskan: The severity of sentence can only be to reflect Parliament's intention that conviction for being in possession of a large amount of any form of prohibited drugs must commensurate with the sentence to be passed on the peculiar facts of each case.” REKOD LAMPAU [26] Puan TPR Yang Bijaksana telah mengemukakan rekod lampau OKT yang disemak melalui Sistem Pengurusan Rekod Jenayah (SPRJ) Polis Diraja Malaysia. Rekod ini kemudiannya telah ditanyakan kepada OKT, di mana OKT telah membuat pengakuan dan mengesahkan di dalam Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini bahawa pada tahun 2018, OKT pernah disabitkan kesalahan di bawah seksyen yang sama iaitu s.12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 oleh Mahkamah Majistret Kluang dan dikenakan hukuman penjara. [27] Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini telah mengambil panduan daripada penghakiman YA Tuan Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud di dalam kes Mohamad Saiful Azhar bin Mohd Amin v Public Prosecutor [2021] MLJU 162 yang telah memutuskan: “[21] Having perused over the different views of their Lordships, I agree with AWANG AHMAD FAISAL AWANG SOHOR (supra) that by confirming that there were previous convictions held against him, the 14 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal accused must have been aware that those convictions could be used by the court to determine sentence against him. [22] This is because confirmation of previous convictions that an accused person is the same as his admission on the facts of the case which in cases of plea of guilty are recorded, and the Court after being satisfied that the accused person admits without qualifications of the Charge against him. [23] Why would there be a reason to reject admission of previous conviction if admission of facts of the case which is the basis of a Charge may be accepted? This disparity is without basis and hence section 400 Criminal Procedure Code provides for “in addition to any other mode provided by any law for the time being in force”. [24] Section 400 Criminal Procedure Code provides for the procedure of previous convictions and is reproduced for ease of reference. 400 How previous conviction or acquittal may be proved (1) In any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code a previous conviction or acquittal or an order directing any person to be under the supervision of the police may be proved in addition to any other mode provided by any law for the time being in force- (a) by an extract certified under the hand of the officer having the custody of the records of the Court whether of Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore in which that conviction or acquittal was had to be a copy of the sentence or order; or (b) in case of a conviction either by a certificate signed by the officer in charge of the prison in Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore in which the punishment or any part of it was inflicted, or by production of the 15 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal warrant of commitment under which the punishment was suffered, together with, in each of those cases, evidence as to the identity of the accused person with the person so convicted or acquitted. (2) In case the officer in charge of any prison shall state in any certificate signed by him that the finger prints which appear on the certificate are those of the person to whom the certificate relates, that certificate shall be evidence of the fact so stated. (3) Every Court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate of conviction and purporting to be signed by the officer in charge of any prison in Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore, and shall also presume that the officer by whom the document purports to be signed was when he signed it the officer in charge of the prison mentioned in that document. [25] There are 2 modes provided for by section 400 which are (a) by an extract certified under the hand of the officer having the custody of the records of the Court whether of Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore in which that conviction or acquittal was had to be a copy of the sentence or order; or (b) in case of a conviction either by a certificate signed by the officer in charge of the prison in Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore in which the punishment or any part of it was inflicted, or by production of the warrant of commitment under which the punishment was suffered, [26] However Section 400 provides for “in addition to any other mode provided by any law for the time being in force”. 16 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [27] This is very wide and it includes the Evidence Act 1950. The Record of Conviction is not in itself a criminal matter but rather it is a record that concern the person himself. [28] In the Evidence Act 1950, there are many modes of proving a matter which are (among others): i. Admission by parties i.e. Section 58 Facts admitted need not be proved. The proviso in sub section (2) is inapplicable because for the purpose of the Records, it is not a proof against the accused himself. ii. Section 60 of the Evidence Act 1950 provides for matters within personal knowledge of the accused that is admitted. 60 Oral evidence must be direct (1)(1) Oral evidence shall in all cases whatever be direct, that is to say- (a) if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; (b) if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; (c) if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner; (d) if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds. iii. Matters that the Court takes judicial notice pursuant to section 57 Evidence Act. 57 Facts of which court must take judicial notice The court shall take judicial notice of the following facts: .... 17 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (g) the seals of all the courts of Malaysia all seals which any person is authorized to use by any law in force for the time being in Malaysia or any part thereof, all seals of which English courts take judicial notice, and the seals of Courts of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction and of notaries public; … (m) the names of the members and officers of the court and of their deputies and subordinate officers and assistants, and also of all officers acting in execution of its process, and of all advocates and other persons authorized by law to appear or act before it; [29] In the absence of the 2 documents mentioned in section 400 Criminal Procedure Code, I am of the view that the Learned Trial Judge may ask the accused person on the previous convictions and sentences meted out. If he admits to it / them, then it may be taken into account. [30] If the accused person denied them, then proof must be presented to the Court by way of documents or evidence that is provided for by section 400 Criminal Procedure Code.” [28] Kes Awang Ahmad Faisal Awang Sohor v PP [2015] 7 CLJ 955 yang dirujuk di atas telah memutuskan: “[6] In my opinion, there is nothing wrong for the learned Magistrate to take into consideration the accused's previous convictions before passing the sentence. This has been the practice by the court for the past years until now. It would only be reasonable for the court to consider the accused's past record of previous convictions in order to determine the appropriate sentence to be meted out. The sentence given to the accused with previous record of past convictions would certainly be different from the sentence given to the first offender committing similar offence.” 18 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [29] Begitu juga kes Public Prosecutor v Jafa Daud [1981] 1 MLJ 315 di mana telah diputuskan: “Where he is found to be a persistent offender for a similar type of offences, then it is in the interest of justice that a deterrent sentence would be passed and, in such a case, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the quantity, nature or value of the subject-matter of the offences with which he is currently charged can very rarely constitute a mitigating factor.” [30] Berdasarkan kepada alasan dan nas di atas, Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini memutuskan bahawa memandangkan kesalahan dadah merupakan suatu kesalahan yang serius dan fakta bahawa OKT merupakan pesalah berulang, suatu hukuman penjara yang lebih panjang adalah tidak keterlaluan dan meranapkan (crushing). Ini juga merupakan suatu bentuk pencegahan dan pada masa yang sama suatu perlindungan kepada kepentingan awam sepertimana dengan memetik R. v James Henry Sargeant [supra]: “We come now to the element of prevention. Unfortunately it is one of the facts of life that there are some offenders for whom neither deterrence nor rehabilitation works. They will go on committing crimes as long as they are able to do so. In those cases the only protection which the public has is that such persons should be locked up for a long period.” KESIMPULAN [31] Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini telah mengambil kira bahawa kes JG-83D- 501-08/2022 bukan merupakan kes yang dilakukan di dalam satu transaksi yang sama dengan kes JG-62D-50-08/2022 yang mana hukumannya sedang dijalani oleh OKT. Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini juga merasakan hukuman pemenjaraan 10 bulan yang dijalankan secara berasingan kepada hukuman 5 tahun pemenjaraan yang sedang dilalui adalah tidak keterlaluan dan 19 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal perintah Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini adalah wajar mengambil kira kepada hal keadaan kes ini. Disediakan oleh: MUSTAQIM BIN SUKARNO Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Kluang Johor Bertarikh: 3 Januari 2023 Bagi Pihak Pendakwaan: TPR Siti Nurfara Fazilun Izilyn Binti Ahmad Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor Bagi Pihak Pembelaan: OKT sendiri. 20 S/N zsJ5ZRh90Uac0z18X01cOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal