LUKMAN HAKIM BIN HUSIN

LUKMAN HAKIM BIN HUSIN

The Sessions Court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences because the three offences occurred on distinct dates with approximately 24-hour breaks, failing the proximity in time element of the one-transaction rule; the sentencing judge considered mitigation and aggravating factors including position of trust and properly exercised discretion; consecutive sentences are justified for deterrence and protection of vulnerable victims, so the appeal is dismissed and the original sentences are affirmed.

Citation
AA-42JSKH-14-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Lukman Hakim bin Husin; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 March 2024
Case Number
AA-42JSKH-14-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court sentences affirmed
Legal Topics
Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentences, One Transaction Rule, Mitigation, Totality Principle, Child Sexual Abuse
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Sentencing Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentences One Transaction Rule Mitigation Totality Principle Child Sexual Abuse

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lukman Hakim bin Husin

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentences imposed by the Sessions Court should run concurrently or consecutively
  2. 2 Whether the three offences constituted a single transaction under the one-transaction rule
  3. 3 Whether the Sessions Court misapplied sentencing principles or erred in exercising discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences because the three offences occurred on distinct dates with approximately 24-hour breaks, failing the proximity in time element of the one-transaction rule; the sentencing judge considered mitigation and aggravating factors including position of trust and properly exercised discretion; consecutive sentences are justified for deterrence and protection of vulnerable victims, so the appeal is dismissed and the original sentences are affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court sentences affirmed

Orders

  • Sentences for the three charges to run consecutively starting from date of arrest 24 May 2023
  • Total imprisonment affirmed as 18 years (6 years per count aggregated consecutively)