MUHAMMAD AFIQ BIN MUHAMAD SHARIF

MUHAMMAD AFIQ BIN MUHAMAD SHARIF

The Court found the Sessions Court did not err in principle or fact in imposing the sentences. Given the gravity, planning, repeated offences against minors including the accused's sister, limited weight was given to mitigation and guilty plea; thus the sentences were appropriate and are upheld. The statutory cap under s288(1) limits total caning to 24 strokes despite a higher aggregate imposed.

Citation
WA-42JSKH-8-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu/tertuduh: Muhammad Affiq bin Muhamad Sharif; Pendakwa Raya/responden: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Case Number
WA-42JSKH-8-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence to Court of Appeal (rayuan Jenayah)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentences of the Sessions Court upheld.
Legal Topics
Rape, Sentencing, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Caning/corporal Punishment, Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, Guilty Plea Mitigation
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Child Protection Rape Sentencing Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Caning/corporal Punishment Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Affiq bin Muhamad Sharif

Perayu/tertuduh

Pendakwa Raya

Pendakwa Raya/responden

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence to Court of Appeal (rayuan Jenayah)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court were excessive or should be reduced
  2. 2 Whether sentences for separate offences should run concurrently or consecutively
  3. 3 Extent of mitigation for guilty plea and personal mitigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the Sessions Court did not err in principle or fact in imposing the sentences. Given the gravity, planning, repeated offences against minors including the accused's sister, limited weight was given to mitigation and guilty plea; thus the sentences were appropriate and are upheld. The statutory cap under s288(1) limits total caning to 24 strokes despite a higher aggregate imposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentences of the Sessions Court upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and conviction and sentences of the Sessions Court affirmed
  • Sentences for second and third offences to run concurrently with each other and to run after the sentence for the first offence as imposed by the Sessions Court