[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MUHAMMAD DANIEL HAKIM BIN KAMARUDIN 2. ) DANIAL ISKANDAR

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MUHAMMAD DANIEL HAKIM BIN KAMARUDIN 2. ) DANIAL ISKANDAR

Given both accused were first-time youthful offenders who pleaded guilty early, expressed remorse, had supportive families and probation material indicating suitability for community rehabilitation, the court lawfully exercised its discretion under Section 5(1) of the Compulsory Attendance Order 1954 to impose a non-custodial Compulsory Attendance Order (6 months, 2 hours daily) instead of imprisonment for the offence under Section 380 Penal Code.

Citation
CF-83RS-40-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: MUHAMMAD DANIEL HAKIM BIN KAMARUDIN (NRIC: 020120-06-0381); Accused: DANIAL ISKANDAR (NRIC: 021230-06-0539)
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 February 2023
Case Number
CF-83RS-40-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing (compulsory Attendance Order Imposed After Plea of Guilty)
Outcome
Accused convicted under Section 380 Penal Code; Compulsory Attendance Order imposed under Section 5(1) Compulsory Attendance Order 1954: 6 months, 2 hours daily at specified Centre; no imprisonment imposed; both accused completed the Order on 27 July 2023.
Legal Topics
Theft (section 380 Penal Code), Compulsory Attendance Order 1954 Section 5(1), Probation Report, Community Service/compulsory Work, First Offender Mitigation, Public Interest in Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sentencing Probation/community Corrections Youth Justice Theft (section 380 Penal Code) Compulsory Attendance Order 1954 Section 5(1) Probation Report Community Service/compulsory Work +2 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

MUHAMMAD DANIEL HAKIM BIN KAMARUDIN (NRIC: 020120-06-0381)

Accused

DANIAL ISKANDAR (NRIC: 021230-06-0539)

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing (compulsory Attendance Order Imposed After Plea of Guilty)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 5(1) of the Compulsory Attendance Order 1954 was applicable and could be invoked instead of imprisonment
  2. 2 Whether imprisonment was appropriate for youthful first offenders charged under Section 380 Penal Code
  3. 3 Whether the accused were physically and circumstantially suitable for compulsory attendance/work

Ratio Decidendi

Given both accused were first-time youthful offenders who pleaded guilty early, expressed remorse, had supportive families and probation material indicating suitability for community rehabilitation, the court lawfully exercised its discretion under Section 5(1) of the Compulsory Attendance Order 1954 to impose a non-custodial Compulsory Attendance Order (6 months, 2 hours daily) instead of imprisonment for the offence under Section 380 Penal Code.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted under Section 380 Penal Code; Compulsory Attendance Order imposed under Section 5(1) Compulsory Attendance Order 1954: 6 months, 2 hours daily at specified Centre; no imprisonment imposed; both accused completed the Order on 27 July 2023.

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 380 Penal Code
  • Compulsory Attendance Order pursuant to Section 5(1) Compulsory Attendance Order 1954: attend specified Centre daily to undertake compulsory work for 6 months for 2 hours each day