YATIM MUSTAFA BIN JAFRI

YATIM MUSTAFA BIN JAFRI

The imposed sentence was lawful and appropriate because Section 39C(1) ADB 1952 mandates a minimum custodial term for the offence, the accused had two prior convictions attracting the statutory regime, the case proceeded to full trial negating plea mitigation, and the need for public deterrence required a sentence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
AC-62D-57-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWARAYA; Accused: Yatim Mustafa bin Jafri
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 March 2023
Case Number
AC-62D-57-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offence / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentence upheld.
Legal Topics
Use of Dangerous Drugs, Mandatory Minimum Sentence, Previous Convictions, Mitigation and Full Trial, Public Interest and Deterrence
Criminal Law Drug Offences Sentencing Law Use of Dangerous Drugs Mandatory Minimum Sentence Previous Convictions Mitigation and Full Trial Public Interest and Deterrence

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWARAYA

Prosecution

Yatim Mustafa bin Jafri

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offence / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed under Section 39C(1) ADB 1952 was lawful and appropriate
  2. 2 Whether mitigation (family responsibilities, remorse) justified a lower sentence after a full trial
  3. 3 Effect of prior convictions on sentencing under Section 39C(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The imposed sentence was lawful and appropriate because Section 39C(1) ADB 1952 mandates a minimum custodial term for the offence, the accused had two prior convictions attracting the statutory regime, the case proceeded to full trial negating plea mitigation, and the need for public deterrence required a sentence within the statutory range; accordingly the sentence of 5 years 6 months imprisonment from date of arrest and 2 years supervision was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentence upheld.

Orders

  • Imprisonment for 5 years 6 months commencing 29/12/2021
  • Two years supervision under Section 38B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952