HASHIM BIN ABDULLAH [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

HASHIM BIN ABDULLAH [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court's conviction and sentence because the offence—rape of a step‑daughter living with the appellant—was particularly serious, public interest and denunciation required the imposed punishment, statutory provisions (s376(3) Penal Code and limits under s172D/172G KPJ) restrict the extent of mitigation for sexual offences, and the appellant's guilty plea and personal circumstances did not justify further reduction.

Citation
CB-42H-7-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Hashim bin Abdullah; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 June 2024
Case Number
CB-42H-7-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Following Conviction in Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction, sentence and ancillary orders of the Sessions Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Rape, Incest (step Parent), Sentencing Principles, Plea Mitigation and Plea Bargaining, Statutory Sentencing Limits
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Sentencing Law Rape Incest (step Parent) Sentencing Principles Plea Mitigation and Plea Bargaining Statutory Sentencing 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hashim bin Abdullah

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Following Conviction in Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court for rape under section 376(3) Penal Code was excessive or should be reduced on appeal
  2. 2 Extent to which a guilty plea and personal mitigation (first offence, remorse, family responsibilities) justify reduction of sentence for serious sexual offences
  3. 3 Application and limits of plea-mitigation under sections 172D and 172G Criminal Procedure Code (KPJ) for sexual offences

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court's conviction and sentence because the offence—rape of a step‑daughter living with the appellant—was particularly serious, public interest and denunciation required the imposed punishment, statutory provisions (s376(3) Penal Code and limits under s172D/172G KPJ) restrict the extent of mitigation for sexual offences, and the appellant's guilty plea and personal circumstances did not justify further reduction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction, sentence and ancillary orders of the Sessions Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence affirmed
  • Imprisonment for 15 years from date of conviction