AZMI BIN MAT HUSSIN

AZMI BIN MAT HUSSIN

The High Court dismissed the appeal because the Magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion after considering mitigation; the offences comprised multiple distinct transactions justifying aggregation of sentences (concurrent and consecutive as appropriate); remand credit was not applicable because the applicant was bailed on several matters and remand was not continuous; and the whipping tally was lawful given the offences arose in separate transactions and were heard as multiple trials together under the statutory framework.

Citation
BA-41H-(148-156)-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Azmi bin Mat Hussin; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
148-156
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 August 2021
Case Number
BA-41H-(148-156)-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / High Court Appellate Review of Magistrate's Sentencing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Magistrate's sentencing upheld
Legal Topics
Cheating (s.420 Penal Code), Dishonest Misappropriation (s.403 Penal Code), Concurrent and Consecutive Sentencing, Corporal Punishment Limits
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Sentencing Cheating (s.420 Penal Code) Dishonest Misappropriation (s.403 Penal Code) Concurrent and Consecutive Sentencing Corporal Punishment Limits

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

Parties

Azmi bin Mat Hussin

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / High Court Appellate Review of Magistrate's Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether missing Exhibit P1 (facts) prevents appellate review
  2. 2 Whether overall sentence of imprisonment is excessive
  3. 3 Whether imprisonment should be computed from date of arrest/remand

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court dismissed the appeal because the Magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion after considering mitigation; the offences comprised multiple distinct transactions justifying aggregation of sentences (concurrent and consecutive as appropriate); remand credit was not applicable because the applicant was bailed on several matters and remand was not continuous; and the whipping tally was lawful given the offences arose in separate transactions and were heard as multiple trials together under the statutory framework.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Magistrate's sentencing upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sentence of 11 years' imprisonment upheld (aggregate after concurrency/consecutive calculation)