ZARIFF MUQRIEZ BIN ZAINON

ZARIFF MUQRIEZ BIN ZAINON

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's sentences because the six-year imprisonment and three strokes per count were proportionate deterrent sentences within statutory limits for each s14(a) offence; the offences were distinct in date/time/place/manner so consecutive sentences were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RA-42JSKS-3-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu / Appellant / Accused: ZARIFF MUQRIEZ BIN ZAINON; Respondent / Public Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 October 2024
Case Number
RA-42JSKS-3-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentences of trial court upheld in full
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences Against Children, Sentencing Principles, Consecutive Sentences, AKKSTKK S14(a), AKKSTKK S26(1), AKKSTKK S27(1), CPC S282(d)
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Child Protection Sentencing Law Sexual Offences Against Children Sentencing Principles Consecutive Sentences AKKSTKK S14(a) +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZARIFF MUQRIEZ BIN ZAINON

Perayu / Appellant / Accused

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent / Public Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was reasonable, proportionate and lawful
  2. 2 Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or unduly lenient
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in ordering the prison terms to run consecutively rather than concurrently

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's sentences because the six-year imprisonment and three strokes per count were proportionate deterrent sentences within statutory limits for each s14(a) offence; the offences were distinct in date/time/place/manner so consecutive sentences were appropriate under CPC s282(d); there was no appealable error in sentencing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentences of trial court upheld in full

Orders

  • Sentence of six (6) years imprisonment and three (3) strokes for each of the four convictions upheld
  • All prison sentences to run separately and consecutively