FAIZAL ANUAR BIN MAT ISA [ ]

FAIZAL ANUAR BIN MAT ISA [ ]

The Court held the three offences occurred in the same transaction (same date, time, place and victim) so the one transaction rule and totality principle required the custodial sentences to run concurrently; convictions were affirmed but the orders for consecutive imprisonment made by the Sessions Court and High Court were set aside and replaced with concurrent sentences.

Citation
A-09(H)-427-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Faizal Anuar bin Mat Isa; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
H
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 September 2023
Case Number
A-09(H)-427-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Appeal Judgment on Sentence Concurrency
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; convictions affirmed; sentences ordered to run concurrently
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Assault of a Child, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, One Transaction Rule, Totality Principle
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Child Protection Sentencing Law Rape Sexual Assault of a Child Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences One Transaction Rule +1 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faizal Anuar bin Mat Isa

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Appeal Judgment on Sentence Concurrency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the three offences constituted a single transaction requiring concurrent sentences
  2. 2 Whether the Sessions Court and High Court erred in ordering consecutive terms of imprisonment
  3. 3 Whether appellate intervention was justified under established sentencing principles

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the three offences occurred in the same transaction (same date, time, place and victim) so the one transaction rule and totality principle required the custodial sentences to run concurrently; convictions were affirmed but the orders for consecutive imprisonment made by the Sessions Court and High Court were set aside and replaced with concurrent sentences.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; convictions affirmed; sentences ordered to run concurrently

Orders

  • Convictions on all three counts affirmed
  • Order that the terms of imprisonment previously ordered to run consecutively is set aside and replaced so that the custodial sentences run concurrently