MUHAMMAD AFFIQ BIN MUHAMAD SHARIF

MUHAMMAD AFFIQ BIN MUHAMAD SHARIF

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentences because the seriousness of repeated sexual offences against minors (including a sibling), the element of planning and recurrence, and the public interest in deterrence outweighed mitigation; guilty plea was afforded limited credit; offences were distinct so sentences were to be imposed separately; total caning was limited to 24 strokes under Section 288(1).

Citation
WA-42JSKH-7-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/accused: MUHAMMAD AFFIQ BIN MUHAMAD SHARIF; Respondent/prosecution: 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 / Appeal Against Sentence to Court of Appeal (after Dismissal of Appeal to High Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentences imposed by the Sessions Court affirmed subject to statutory limit on cane strokes.
Legal Topics
Rape, Sentencing Discretion, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Plea Discount, Caning Limits
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Child Protection Sentencing Law Rape Sentencing Discretion Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences Plea Discount +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MUHAMMAD AFFIQ BIN MUHAMAD SHARIF

Appellant/accused

PENDAKWA RAYA

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence to Court of Appeal (after Dismissal of Appeal to High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for multiple rape offences involving minors
  2. 2 Whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively
  3. 3 Extent of mitigation for a guilty plea and personal circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentences because the seriousness of repeated sexual offences against minors (including a sibling), the element of planning and recurrence, and the public interest in deterrence outweighed mitigation; guilty plea was afforded limited credit; offences were distinct so sentences were to be imposed separately; total caning was limited to 24 strokes under Section 288(1).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentences imposed by the Sessions Court affirmed subject to statutory limit on cane strokes.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sentences of imprisonment and caning as imposed by the Sessions Court are affirmed