MUHAMMAD AFFIQ BIN MUHAMAD SHARIF

MUHAMMAD AFFIQ BIN MUHAMAD SHARIF

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Sessions Court sentences because the offences were serious and aggravated (victims were minors, one a sibling, offences involved planning and repetition), mitigating factors (youth, remorse, guilty plea, family responsibilities) did not outweigh public interest and deterrence; sentences for distinct offences were properly imposed separately with concurrency applied only between the second and third counts as appropriate, and the statutory cap limited total caning to 24 strokes under Section 288(1).

Citation
WA-42JSKH-7-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/accused: Muhammad Affiq bin Muhamad Sharif; Respondent/public Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Case Number
WA-42JSKH-7-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (sentence) / Court of Appeal Hearing on Sentence (appeal Against Sentence Only)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Rape, Child Sexual Abuse, Sentencing Discretion, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Corporal Punishment Cap
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Child Protection Sentencing Law Rape Child Sexual Abuse Sentencing Discretion Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences +1 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Affiq bin Muhamad Sharif

Appellant/accused

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent/public Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (sentence) / Court of Appeal Hearing on Sentence (appeal Against Sentence Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether sentences for distinct offences should run concurrently or consecutively
  3. 3 Appropriate weight to give to mitigation (youth, remorse, plea, family responsibilities) versus public interest and deterrence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Sessions Court sentences because the offences were serious and aggravated (victims were minors, one a sibling, offences involved planning and repetition), mitigating factors (youth, remorse, guilty plea, family responsibilities) did not outweigh public interest and deterrence; sentences for distinct offences were properly imposed separately with concurrency applied only between the second and third counts as appropriate, and the statutory cap limited total caning to 24 strokes under Section 288(1).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court sentence upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sessions Court sentences on all three counts are upheld