TENGKU IZWAN SHAH BIN TENGKU AZMAN

TENGKU IZWAN SHAH BIN TENGKU AZMAN

The court held that the two robberies were distinct offences committed on different dates and at different places; s292(1) CPC permits a sentence to commence at the expiration of an existing sentence, and relevant precedents support consecutive sentences for distinct offences; the one transaction rule did not apply, therefore the sentence in AA-62RS-35-08/2023 was ordered to run consecutively with AA-62RS-37-08/2023.

Citation
AA-62RS-35-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Tengku Izwan Shah bin Tengku Azman
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Case Number
AA-62RS-35-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal Against Sentence (consecutive Vs Concurrent)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentence ordered to run consecutively with sentence in AA-62RS-37-08/2023.
Legal Topics
Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, One Transaction Rule, Totality Principle, Commencement of Imprisonment
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sentencing Robbery Criminal Procedure Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences One Transaction Rule Totality Principle Commencement of Imprisonment

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

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Tengku Izwan Shah bin Tengku Azman

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal Against Sentence (consecutive Vs Concurrent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently
  2. 2 Whether s.292(1) CPC permits commencement after prior sentence
  3. 3 Whether offences constitute one transaction requiring concurrent sentences

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the two robberies were distinct offences committed on different dates and at different places; s292(1) CPC permits a sentence to commence at the expiration of an existing sentence, and relevant precedents support consecutive sentences for distinct offences; the one transaction rule did not apply, therefore the sentence in AA-62RS-35-08/2023 was ordered to run consecutively with AA-62RS-37-08/2023.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentence ordered to run consecutively with sentence in AA-62RS-37-08/2023.

Orders

  • Sentence of 6 years imprisonment and 2 lashes in AA-62RS-35-08/2023 to commence at the expiration of the sentence in AA-62RS-37-08/2023.
  • Effective cumulative sentence recorded as 11 years imprisonment and 3 lashes.