[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MUHAMAD NORULAINI BIN SUPARDI

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MUHAMAD NORULAINI BIN SUPARDI

Given the accused's unqualified plea of guilty, demonstrated remorse, first offender status, passive possession/provision of materials, forfeiture of items, and the one-transaction nature of the offences, an aggregate concurrent sentence of 18 months imprisonment commencing from date of arrest was proportionate and not grossly inadequate; concurrent enforcement is authorized by section 282(d) CPC.

Citation
WA-45SO-23-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Muhamad Norulaini bin Supardi
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 December 2024
Case Number
WA-45SO-23-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Sentencing/judgment
Outcome
Accused convicted on all charges and sentenced; prosecution filed appeal against sentence.
Legal Topics
Possession of Terrorist Items, Providing Items to Terrorist Group, Forfeiture, Plea of Guilty/uncp, Concurrent Sentencing, Rehabilitation Vs Deterrence, One Transaction Principle
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Terrorism Sentencing Procedure Possession of Terrorist Items Providing Items to Terrorist Group Forfeiture Plea of Guilty/uncp +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 8 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Muhamad Norulaini bin Supardi

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Sentencing/judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentence of 18 months was grossly inadequate
  2. 2 Whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively
  3. 3 Proper application of s130JB (possession/provision) and forfeiture

Ratio Decidendi

Given the accused's unqualified plea of guilty, demonstrated remorse, first offender status, passive possession/provision of materials, forfeiture of items, and the one-transaction nature of the offences, an aggregate concurrent sentence of 18 months imprisonment commencing from date of arrest was proportionate and not grossly inadequate; concurrent enforcement is authorized by section 282(d) CPC.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on all charges and sentenced; prosecution filed appeal against sentence.

Orders

  • Accused convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas to charges under section 130JB(1)(a) and 130JB(1)(b) of the Penal Code
  • For each charge the accused was sentenced to one year six months imprisonment; all sentences to run concurrently