MOHAMAD@ MUHAMAD BIN IBRAHIM

[JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 MALAYSIA DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI MUAR DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM RAYUAN JENAYAH NO.: JB-42H-10-08/2020 ANTARA MOHAMAD@ MUHAMAD BIN IBRAHIM … PERAYU AND PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN (DALAM PERKARA MAHKAMAH SESYEN SEGAMAT DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM KES TANGKAP JENAYAH : JD-62JS-01-07/2020) ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN MOHAMAD@ MUHAMAD BIN IBRAHIM KORAM: AWG ARMADAJAYA BIN AWG MAHMUD PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN  ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN  1 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 MUQQADDIMMAH [1] Ini adalah 2 rayuan terhadap hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan oleh Puan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana di Segamat dalam Negeri Johor dimana Perayu telah dituduh dengan 2 pertuduhan dibawah seksyen 372A(1) Kanun Keseksaan diatas kehendak Pendakwa Raya Malaysia dan pertuduhan-pertuduhan terhadap Perayu adalah seperti berikut: Kes JD-62JS-01-07/2020 “Bahawa kamu pada 8.7.2020, jam lebih kurang 9.50 malam di Hotel Harmony, Jalan Syed Abd Kader, di dalam daerah Segamat, di dalam negeri Johor Darul Takzim, telah didapati hidup sepenuhnya atau sebahagiannya daripada hasil persundalan dari penama Sufiatik No.paspot Indonesia C4077366. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen 372A(1) Kanun Keseksaan”. Kes JD-62JS-02-07/2020 “Bahawa kamu pada 8.7.2020, jam lebih kurang 9.50 malam di Hotel Harmony, Jalan Syed Abd Kader, di dalam daerah Segamat, di dalam negeri Johor Darul Takzim, telah didapati hidup sepenuhnya atau sebahagiannya daripada hasil persundalan dari penama Irma Muliana No.My PR Indonesia 721205-61-5050. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen 372A(1) Kanun Keseksaan”. [2] Semasa kes disebut di Mahkamah Sesyen, Perayu telah mengaku salah dan setelah Mahkamah Bicara menerangkan pertuduhan- pertuduhan tersebut, Perayu menyatakan bahwa dia mengaku memahami pertuduhan-pertuduhan yang diterangkan. 2 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 [3] Selanjutnya sifat dan akibat pengakuan salah diterangkan kepada Perayu dan setelah memahami sifat dan akibat pengakuan salah, Perayu mengekalkan pengakuan salah. [4] Perayu telah mengaku fakta kes sebagai betul dan semua barang kes yang dikemukakan dan Mahkamah telah berpuas hati Perayu memahami pertuduhan serta sifat dan akibat pengakuan salah dan mengakui fakta kes, Mahkamah Bicara telah mensabitkan Perayu atas kesemua pertuduhan dan menjatuhkan hukuman 9 tahun dari tarikh tangkap i.e. (8 Julai 2020) bagi setiap kesalahan dan kedua- dua hukuman berjalan serentak. LATARBELAKANG KES [5] Pada 8.7.2020 jam lebih kurang 9.50 malam, Inspektor Hatta bin Hussin (Pengadu) bersama sepasukan anggota telah menjalankan serbuan Ops Noda di Hotel Harmony, Segamat. Pengadu telah menjumpai Perayu di Tingkat Satu, Hotel berkenaan. Hasil pemeriksaan lanjut, di Bilik No.306, pintu yang telah dibuka oleh seorang Agen Provokatur dalam keadaan memakai tuala bersama dengan seorang perempuan Indonesia bernama Sufiatik No.paspot Indonesia C4077366 yang turut memakai tuala berada di atas katil. [6] Pengadu telah merampas satu kondom beserta wang tunai berjumlah RM70. Manakala di Bilik No.308, pintu telah dibuka oleh seorang Agen Provokatur yang lain dalam keadaan memakai tuala bersama dengan seorang perempuan Indonesia bernama Irma Muliana No.My PR Indonesia 721205-61-5050 yang turut memakai tuala berada di atas katil. Pengadu telah merampas dua kondom beserta wang tunai berjumlah RM70-00. 3 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 [7] Perayu telah terlibat dengan kegiatan persundalan di mana Perayu merupakan orang yang menguruskan pelacur-pelacur di hotel tersebut dengan menerima bayaran sebanyak RM20-00 untuk setiap pelanggan. PRINSIP PENGHUKUMAN [8] Dalam buku Criminal Litigation Process, Sweet & Maxwell 3rd Edition di mukasurat 535 - 536, telah dinyatakan : “The deterrent sentence is heavy to deter the offender and future offenders and is useful for rampant offences such as rape, burglary, robbery, theft etc. It is important that the prosecution provides evidence of the rampancy of the offence as held in PP v. ALFRED A/L VINCENT. Lawton LJ also delivered his view in relation to the aim of deterrent sentences in R v. Davies as follows: There are two aspects of deterrence: deterrence of the offender and deterrence of likely offenders. Experience has shown over the years that deterrence of the offender is not a very useful approach, because those who have their wits about them usually find the closing of prison gates an experience which they do not want again. If they do not learn that lesson, there is likely to be a high degree of recidivism anyway. So far as deterrence of others is concerned, it is the experience of the courts that deterrent sentences are of little value in respect of offences which are committed on the spur of the moment, either in hot blood or in drink or both. Deterrent sentences may very well be considerable value where crime is premeditated.” [9] Mahkamah ini telah merujuk dan menerima pakai prinsip-prinsip penghukuman yang digariskan oleh YA Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Augustine Paul (pada ketika itu) dalam kes PUBLIC 4 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 PROSECUTOR v. GOVINDNAN A/L CHINDEN NAIR [1998] 2 CLJ 370; [1988] 2 MLJ 181, yang membuat pemerhatian berikut: “In my opinion, a guilty plea ought to be considered in favour of the accused only when all other factors and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence justify such a consideration. Its application in favour of the accused depends on the circumstances of each case (see WONG KAI CHUEN PHILIP v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1990] 1 LNS 146; [1991] 1 MLJ 321). In PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. LOW KOK WAI [1988] 2 CLJ Rep 268; [1988] 2 CLJ 105; [1988] 3 MLJ 123, Mohamed Dzaiddin (as he then was) said at p 124:... In the present case, the only mitigating factor is the accused's plea of guilty. It is a principle of sentencing that whenever possible the court should take into account as a mitigating factor the fact that the accused had pleaded guilty. The extent to which a plea of guilt is a mitigating factor must depend on the facts of each case, and it cannot be a powerful mitigating factor when effectively no defence to the charge was available to the accused (see Archbold (42nd Ed) para 4-480 citing R v. Davis [1980] 2 Cr App R (s) 168). The severity of the offence committed may outweigh the mitigating effect of a guilty plea (see LEO SAY & ORS v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1985] 2 CLJ 155, LOH HOCK SENG v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1979] 1 LNS 48; [1980] 2 MLJ 13 and PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. OO LENG SWEE & ORS [1981] 1 LNS 109; [1981] 1 MLJ 247). Where public interest demands a deterrent sentence in the circumstances of a particular case, then the effect of such a plea must also give way. In this regard, I refer to R v. COSTEN [1989] II Cr App R (s) 182(S) 182 where Lord Lane said at p. 184: But there are certain exceptions, likewise well authenticated in the authorities, to that general rule that discount will be allowed for a plea of guilty. The first and most important exception is the protection of the public. Where it is necessary that a long sentence, if necessary the maximum sentence, should be passed in order to protect the public, in those circumstances, a plea of guilty may not 5 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 result in any discount. Thus, there can be no automatic rule that a guilty plea on its own entitles an accused to a lesser punishment.” [10] Di dalam kes R v. BALL (KENNETH JOHN) [1951] 35 Cr App R 164, Hakim Hilbery menyatakan: “In deciding the appropriate sentence a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced, not only with the object of punishing crime, but also in the hope of preventing it. A proper sentence, passed in public, serves the public interest in two ways. It may deter others who might be tempted to try crime as seeming to offer easy money on the supposition, that if the offender is caught and brought to justice, the punishment will be negligible. Such a sentence may also deter the particular criminal from committing a crime again, or induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living. Our law does not, therefore, fix the sentence for a particular crime, but fixes a maximum sentence and leaves it to the court to decide what is, within the maximum, the appropriate sentence for each criminal in the particular circumstances of each case. Not only in regard to each crime, but in regard to each criminal, the court has the right and the duty to decide whether to be lenient or severe.” [11] Suatu pertimbangan penting ialah kepentingan awam, yang semestinya mengatasi pertimbangan lain. Persoalan yang timbul ialah apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan frasa “Kepentingan Awam”? Di dalam kamus “The Random House Dictionary of the English Language: The Unabridged Edition.” (1994 edition) mentakrifkan “kepentingan awam” (Public Interest) sebagai 6 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 “kepentingan atau kesejahteraan masyarakat secara am” (the welfare or well-being of the general public and society). [12] Terdapat berapa peringkat dalam konsep kepentingan awam. [13] Yang paling utama ialah keselamatan negara. Tanpa jaminan terhadap keselamatan negara kesemua perkara seperti “kedaulatan undang-undang”, “hak asasi manusia”, “pemerentahan yang adil dan saksama” serta “pengaturan kendiri oleh masyarakat dan norma am yang diterma” adalah impian indah semata-mata. [14] Keduanya adalah ketenteraman awam dimana kedaulatan undang- undang, prosedur yang betul dipatuhi dan tidak dibimbangi berlakunya keadaan dimana seseorang tidak terkeliru dengan keadaan huru hara yang menyerupai undang-undang rimba. [15] Ketiga ialah perhatian media yang timbul kerana perhatian masyarakat atau ahli masyarakat terutama warga yang berhemah dan ia menyumbang kepada perasaan ingin tahu warga masyarakat. Pelaporan yang bersifat sensasi bukanlah terjumlah dalam kategori ini. Semestinya perlu wujud sebab yang munasabah serta penting untuk masyarakat am ingin mengetahui mengenai sesuatu isu yang diperkatakan dalam masyarakat samada ia telah membangkitnya minat warga masyarakat yang berhemah kerana telah menyentuh sensitiviti masyarakat atau pegangan masyarakat atau adat semasa dan setempat atau norma universal. [16] Jika berlaku pertembungan diantara kepentingan awam dan hak individu, kepentingan awam hendaklah mengatasi segalanya. Ini tidak bermakna penafian hak individu tetapi kewujudan individu 7 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 dalam dunia bertamaddun bergantung kepada kewujudan masyarakat dan dunia secara keseluruhan. Bukan sebarang dunia tetapi dunia yang mendaulatkan undang-undang, melaksanakan keadilan, mempertahankan hak warganya dari diceroboh, pentadbiran urusan manusia secara teratur dan pemerkasaan jiwa kemanusiaan dalam setiap insan yang ada. Hak asasi individu telah secara terang dan nyata dilindungi oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan dicerminkan dalam Perkara 5 sehingga Perkara 13. [17] Dalam kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. LOO CHOON FATT [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ 256 Mahkamah telah membincangkan persoalan yang tersebut diatas seperti berikut: “In respect of sentencing there can be only general guidelines. No two cases can have exactly the same facts to the minutest detail. Facts do differ from case to case and ultimately each case has to be decided on its own merits. In practice sentences do differ not only from case to case but also from court to court. All things being equal these variations are inevitable if only because of the human element involved. But, of course, there must be limits to permissible variations. The principles to be applied in imposing sentence however are the same in every case. The High Court sitting in exercise of its revisionary powers will not normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence of the lower court is either manifestly inadequate or grossly excessive or illegal or otherwise not a proper sentence having regard to all the facts disclosed on the record or to all the facts which the court ought to take judicial notice of, that is to say, that the lower court clearly has erred in applying the correct principles in the assessment of the sentence. It is a firmly established practice that the court will not alter a sentence merely because it might have passed a different sentence. 8 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 ... Presidents and Magistrate are often inclined quite naturally to be over-sympathetic to the accused. This is a normal psychological reaction to the situation in which the lonely accused is seen facing an array of witness with authority. The mitigation submitted by a convicted person will also normally bring up problems of the family hardship and the other usual problems of living. In such a situation the courts might perhaps find it difficult to decide as to what sentence should be imposed so that the convicted person may not be further burdened with additional hardship. This in my view is wrong approach. The correct approach is to strike a balance, as far as possible, between the interest of the public and the interests of the accused. [18] Hakim Besar Lord Goddard dalam kes REX v. GRONDKOWSKI [1946] 1 All ER 560 561 memberi mutiara kata sebagai nasihat seperti berikut:- “The judge must consider the interests of justice as well as the interest of the prisoners. It is too often nowadays thought, or seems to be thought, that the interests of justice means only the interest of prisoners.” [19] Mahkamah hendaklah mengambil kira hak individu seseorang tertuduh dan mengukurnya dengan kepentingan masyarakat secara am. Masyarakat hendaklah dilindungi dari sebarang pelakuan individu yang bukan setakat membahayakan masyarakat tersebut tetapi juga ahli atau warganya. [20] Pada masa yang sama, individu berkenaan diberi peluang untuk bertaubat dan kembali ke pangkuan jalan dengan mengislahkan dirinya. Konsep melindungi masyarakat am bukan saja melindungi orang lain dari pelakuan jenayah seseorang pesalah tetapi juga melindungi pesalah dari pelakuan yang seumpamanya yang boleh 9 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 dilakukan oleh warga lain terhadap diri pesalah tersebut. Sebab itulah harus diingatkan melindungi masyarakat am juga bermaksud melindungi pesalah itu sendiri. [21] Di antara faktor yang diambil kira tetapi tidak terhad kepadanya ialah: i. keseriusan kesalahan. ii. melindungi kepentingan awam. iii. sama ada terdapat justifikasi untuk pelakuan jenayah tersebut. iv. sebarang sabitan lampau. v. pengakuan bersalah. [22] Seorang penulis dan pengkaji undang-undang yang bernama DA Thomas dalam bukunya PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING, 2nd edn at pp. 57-58 said: “The many decisions of the court in which the totality principle has been applied to explain the reduction of a cumulative sentence made up of correctly calculated individual parts suggest that the principle has two limbs. A cumulative sentence may offend the totality principle if the aggregate sentence is substantially above the normal level of sentences for the most serious of the individual offences involved, or if its effect is to impose on the offender ‘a crushing sentence’ not in keeping with his record and prospects.” [23] Secara amnya, pengakuan bersalah adalah satu faktor mitigasi yang kuat. Bagaimanapun dalam keadaan dimana kesalahan terlalu serius maka pengakuan salah tidak diberi pertimbangan yang berat. 10 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 [24] Dalam rayuannya Perayu memberitahu Mahkamah bahwa ini saja yang dimampu kerjakan untuk mencari nafkah kerana terkena strok. Usianya yang lanjut dan perayu tidak ada tempat pergantungan. Perayu juga mengalami tahap kesehatan yang buruk. [25] Saya berpandangan bahwa Perayu akan dapat penjagaan perubatan serta dijamin makanan serta minum dalam penjara. Perayu tidak perlu bimbang isu ketidakcukupan wang untuk perbelanjaan kehidupan. [26] Dalam kes PP v. JAFA BIN DAUD [1981] 1 LNS 28; [1981] 1 MLJ 315, YA Hakim Azmi menerangkan konsep penghukuman- A “sentence according to law” means that the sentence must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section, but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles. In assessing sentence, one of the main factors to be considered is whether the convicted person is a first offender. It is for this purpose that before passing sentence, a Magistrate is required to call for evidence or information regarding the background, antecedent and character of the accused. Where the convicted person has previous records and admits them as correct, the court must consider whether the offence or offences committed previously were of similar nature as the one with which he is presently charged. The court must then consider the sentences imposed in the previous convictions for similar offences to determine whether they have had any deterrent effect on him. Where he is found to be a persistent offender for a similar type of offences, then it is in the interest of justice that a deterrent sentence should be passed and, in such a case, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the quantity, nature or value of the subject-matter of the offence with which he is currently charged can very rarely constitute a mitigating factor. 11 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 [27] Frasa “A sentence according to law” means that the sentence must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section, but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles” bermaksud Mahkamah hendaklah menghukum menurut undang-undang, bukan setakat peruntukan nyata dalam undang-undang tetapi juga merangkumi prinsip perundangan yang mantap dan tuntas. [28] Rayuan peringanan ini diketimbang dengan faktor pemberatan dan Mahkamah boleh menentukan apakah hukuman yang adil dan saksama pada neraca keadilan (sila rujuk RAJA IZZUDDIN SHAH v. PP [1978] 1 LNS 165; [1979] 1 MLJ 270, FU FOO TONG v. PP [1995] 1 SLR 448). [29] YAA Hakim Besar Brown dalam kes ABDUL KARIM v. REGINA [1954] 1 LNS 3; [1954] 20 MLJ 86 menyatakan: “In the matter of punishment, the ‘type of offence’ is the concern of the Legislature, which has provided the maximum punishment which can be inflicted for a serious offence of that type. The particular offence, and the particular offender, are the concern of the Court, whose business it is to decide what punishment is merited upon the facts of the individual case within the limits which the Legislature has provided. Any tendency to standardise punishment for any type of offence is to be deplored because it means that the individual offender is being punished not upon the facts of his particular case but because he has committed an offence of that type” [30] Dalam kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. LOW KOK WAI [1988] 2 CLJ REP 268; [1988] 2 CLJ 105; [1988] 3 MLJ 123, YA Hakim 12 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 Mohamed Dzaiddin (pada ketika itu) menyatakan pada mukasurat 124: ...In the present case, the only mitigating factor is the accused's plea of guilty. It is a principle of sentencing that whenever possible the court should take into account as a mitigating factor the fact that the accused had pleaded guilty. The extent to which a plea of guilt is a mitigating factor must depend on the facts of each case, and it cannot be a powerful mitigating factor when effectively no defence to the charge was available to the accused (see Archbold (42nd Ed) para 4-480 citing R v. Davis [1980] 2 Cr App R (s) 168). [31] Dalam kes R v. COSTEN [1989] II Cr App R (s) 182(S) 182 dimana Lord Lane menyatakan pada mukasurat 184: “But there are certain exceptions, likewise well authenticated in the authorities, to that general rule that discount will be allowed for a plea of guilty. The first and most important exception is the protection of the public. Where it is necessary that a long sentence, if necessary the maximum sentence, should be passed in order to protect the public, in those circumstances, a plea of guilty may not result in any discount. Thus, there can be no automatic rule that a guilty plea on its own entitles an accused to a lesser punishment. It is my view that the learned magistrate, in imposing the sentence, had placed undue emphasis on the guilty plea of the accused. His opinion that a lenient sentence must be imposed following a guilty plea is clearly wrong in law. It overlooks the fact that the plea must be considered in the light of the other circumstances of the case”. [32] Sepertimana yang dinyatakan oleh Hakim O’Bryan said in VAITOS v. R [1981] 4 A Crim R 238 at p. 301: 13 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 I have some difficulty appreciating the concept that a richly deserved sentence, not manifestly excessive, should be disturbed because the person upon whom the sentence is imposed may feel crushed by it. It is quite true that the applicant has to face a very long term of imprisonment before he will be released and because he is a comparatively young man, many of the best years of his life will be spent in custody. However, from the community point of view, his detention for a very substantial period is necessary to protect females from his criminal behaviour. [33] Dalam undang-undang, terdapat banyak matlamat dalam penghukuman. Diantaranya ialah faktor pencegahan (deterrent), pemulihan (rehabilitative), mengembalikan keadaan asal (restorative), pembalasan (retribution) dan pembalasan (retribution) [34] Setelah disabitkan, sesuatu Mahkamah Bicara hendaklah memulakan pengiraan hukuman dengan yang maksima yang dibenarkan oleh undang-undang. Kemudian berdasarkan fakta dan keadaan kes, “diskaun” boleh diberikan untuk kes-kes yang kurang serius dalam julat atau kategori kes yang sama. Istilah “diskaun” terdapat dalam kes MOHD ABDULLAH ANG SWEE KANG v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1987] CLJ Rep 209 dimana diputuskan “A sentencer must give sufficient discount for all extenuating circumstances pertaining to the degree of culpability or criminality involved, which must necessarily vary from case to case apart from other mitigating factors. Unless there is a proper reason for withholding such credits, failure to do so may result in the sentencer not exercising his or her discretion judicially in assessing the level of custodial sentence.” [35] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes WONG KENG LIANG v. PP [2013] 1 CLJ 96 telah menjelaskan bahawa seorang Tertuduh yang 14 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 merupakan “pesalah pertama” adalah satu faktor mitigasi yang harus diambil kira dan diberi kepentingan: ‘It is trite law that the accused’s guilty plea is a mitigating factor: See PP V. SAU SOO KIM [1975] 1 LNS 158 per Lee Hun Hoe J (B); and MELVANI V. PP [1971] 1 LNS 78 per Wee Chong Jin CJ (Singapore) (as then was) who also considered “first offender” as another mitigating factor, as has been done by Mohamed Azmi J (later FCJ) in PP V. JAFA DAUD [1981] 1 LNS 28.’ [36] Dalam SAU SOO KIM v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1975] 1 LNS 158 telah diputuskan: Whether a person is a hardened criminal or not, I feel that a plea of guilty should be treated as a mitigating factor. It not only saves the country a great expense of a lengthy trial but also saves time and inconvenience of many, particularly the witnesses. [37] Lord Goddard L. C.J. in REX v. GRONDKOWSKI [1946] 1 All ER 560 561 memberi kata-kata nasihat berikut:- "The judge must consider the interests of justice as well as the interest of the prisoners. It is too often nowadays thought, or seems to be thought, that the interests of justice means only the interest of prisoners." [38] Mahkamah hendaklah mengambil kira hak individu seseorang tertuduh dan mengukurnya dengan kepentingan masyarakat secara am. Masyarakat hendaklah dilindungi dari sebarang pelakuan individu yang bukan setakat membahayakan masyarakat tersebut tetapi juga ahli atau warganya. 15 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 [39] Pada masa yang sama, individu berkenaan diberi peluang untuk bertaubat dan kembali ke pangkuan jalan dengan mengislahkan dirinya. Konsep melindungi masyarakat am bukan saja melindungi orang lain dari pelakuan jenayah seseorang pesalah tetapi juga melindungi pesalah dari pelakuan yang seumpamanya yang boleh dilakukan oleh warga lain terhadap diri pesalah tersebut. Sebab itulah harus diingatkan melindungi masyarakat am juga bermaksud melindungi pesalah itu sendiri. [40] Saya memberi perhatian serius bahwa Perayu mengaku salah dan berdasarkan kepada peruntukan Seksyen 172D(1)(c)(ii) Kanun Acara Jenayah memperuntukkan: (ii) subject to subsections (2) and (3), sentence the accused to not more than half of the maximum punishment of imprisonment provided under the law for the offence for which the accused has been convicted. [41] Pemakaian seksyen 172G serta 172D Kanun Tatacara Jenayah hendaklah difahami dalam konteks yang betul. Saya perturunkan peruntukan ini untuk menjelaskan maksudnya. S.172D. Disposal of the case. “(1) Where a satisfactory disposition of the case has been agreed upon by the accused and the Public Prosecutor under section 172C, the Court shall, in accordance with law, dispose of the case in the following manner: (a) make any order under section 426; and 16 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 (b) where the satisfactory disposition is in relation to a plea bargaining of the charge, find the accused guilty on the charge agreed upon in the satisfactory disposition and sentence the accused accordingly; or (c) where the satisfactory disposition is in relation to a plea bargaining of the sentence, find the accused guilty on the charge and- (i) deal with the accused under section 293 or 294; or (ii) subject to subsections (2) and (3), sentence the accused to not more than half of the maximum punishment of imprisonment provided under the law for the offence for which the accused has been convicted. (2) Where there is a minimum term of imprisonment provided under the law for the offence, no accused shall be sentenced to a lesser term of imprisonment than that of the minimum term. (3) Subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) shall not apply where- (a) in the case of a serious offence, the accused has a previous conviction for a related or same offence; or (b) where the offence for which the accused is charged with falls within the following: (i) an offence for which the punishment provided under the law is fine only; (ii) an offence for which the punishment provided under the law is imprisonment for natural life; 17 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 (iii) any sexual related offence; (iv) any offence committed against a child who is below twelve years of age; or (v) any other offence as may be specified by the Public Prosecutor by order published in the Gazette. (4) For the purpose of paragraph (3)(a), “serious offence” means an offence where the maximum term of imprisonment that can be imposed is not less than ten years, and includes any attempt or abetment to commit such offence.”. [42] Seksyen 172 memperuntukkan bahawa jika Tertuduh mengaku salah sebelum permulaan bicara maka peruntukan seksyen 172D(1)(c)(ii) adalah terpakai. Selain dari itu, seksyen 172D(1)(c)(ii) memperuntukkan berapa syarat: a. Pemakaiannya tertakluk kepada Akuan Rundingan / Pengakuan salah sebelum permulaan bicara iaitu sebelum saksi dipanggil dan bukan pada tarikh yang dijalankan perbicaraan (dalam kes ini seorang saksi sudah dipanggil). Pengakuan salah selepas permulaan bicara tidak melayakkan seseorang Tertuduh untuk mendapat perlindungan ini. b. Ia bukan didalam kategori berikut iaitu : i. Hukuman hanya denda. ii. Hukuman untuk sepanjang hayat. iii. Kesalahan yang berkaitan dengan seks. iv. Mangsa berusia dibawah 12 tahun. 18 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 v. Mana-mana kesalahan lain yang diwartakan oleh Pendakwa Raya untuk dikecualikan dari Pemakaian seksyen 172D(1)(c)(ii). c. Ia bukan kesalahan jenayah serius yang berulang (yang membawa hukuman 10 tahun penjara keatas) dan ini termasoklah kesalahan yang dalam jenis yang sama seperti curi dan rompak adalah dari jenis jenayah harta atau pecah amanh secara jenayah dan salahguna secara jenayah juga adalah jenis jenayah yang melibatkan integriti [43] Dalam mentafsirkan sesuatu peruntukan perundangan, wajar untuk dilihat kaedah atau prinsip perundangan yang tuntas sebagai kayu ukur ketepatan tafsiran tersebut. [44] Oleh kerana kesalahan Seksyen 372A(1) Kanun Keseksaan adalah kesalahan menggunakan hasil persundalan dan diperturunkan seperti berikut: 372A Persons living on or trading in prostitution (1) Whoever knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitution of another person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fifteen years and with whipping, and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Where any person is proved to have exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that that person is aiding, abetting or compelling the prostitution of the prostitute with any other person or generally that person shall, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, be deemed to be knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution. 19 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 [45] Persundalan berasal dari perkataan “sundal” iaitu memberi perkhidmatan seks secara sukarela diatas imbalan atas perkhidmatan tersebut. [46] Oleh kerana asas kepada kesalahan dibawah seksyen 372A Kanun Keseksaan adalah persundalan maka bergantung kepada hasil persundalan tidak boleh dipisahkan dari persundalan. Yang lebih buruk ialah Perayu adalah seorang lelaki yang mengekplotasi wanita untuk keuntungan dirinya dan ini adalah juga satu kesalahan dibawah seksyen 15 Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Manusia dan Anti penyeludupan Migran yang berbunyi “Mana-mana orang yang mendapatkan keuntungan daripada pengeksploitasian orang yang diperdagangkan melakukan suatu kesalahan dan hendaklah, apabila disabitkan, dihukum dengan pemenjaraan selama tempoh tidak melebihi lima belas tahun, dan boleh juga didenda tidak kurang daripada lima ratus ribu ringgit tetapi tidak melebihi satu juta ringgit dan boleh juga dilucuthakkan keuntungan daripada kesalahan itu.” [47] Kedua-dua jenis kesalahan membawa hukuman maksima 15 tahun penjara. Perbezaannya ialah sama ada ia mengundang sebatan atau denda. [48] Berbalik kepada jenis kesalahan, sekalipun Perayu bukan melakukan hubungan seks dengan wanita yang diperdagangnya, namun ia adalah dalam kategori menggunakan seks sebagai satu bahan jualan. [49] Ini adalah sesuatu perbuatan yang jijik kerana ia menjadikan wanita sebagai haiwan untuk diperah kehormatan dan kehormatan dirinya. 20 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 Ia tidak memartabatkan wanita pada tempat yang sebenarnya dalam masyarakat yang bertamadun. [50] Pada pandangan saya sebarang kesalahan yang berpunca dari kegiatan seksual termasok persundalan adalah kesalahan sexual dan memperdagangkan manusia. Ia terkecuali dari seksyen 172D(1)(c)(ii) Kanun Tatavara Jenayah dan tiada pengurangan hukuman adalah dibenarkan. Mahkamah bicara berhak (berdasarkan pemakaian prinsip perundangan yang mantap dan jitu) untuk memberi hukuman maksima yang diperuntukkan. KESIMPULAN [51] Adalah prinsip perundangan yang jitu bahwa Mahkamah yang melaksanakan bidangkuasa rayuan tidak akan dengan mudah mengganggu hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah Bicara semata-mata kerana ia berbeza pandangan dengan Mahkamah Bicara. [52] Saya terpanggil untuk memetik kes BHANDULANANDA JAYATILAKE v. PP [1981] 1 LNS 139; [1982] 1 MLJ 83 dimana Mahkamah memutuskan: “Therefore sentences do vary in apparently similar circumstances with the habit of mind of the particular judge. It is for that reason also that this court has said it again and again that it will not normally interfere with sentences, and the possibility or even the probability, that another court would have imposed different sentence is not sufficient, per se, to warrant this court's interference.” 21 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 [53] Adalah menjadi prinsip perundangan yang mantap, Mahkamah Tinggi (dalam menjalankan kuasa rayuan) tidak boleh sewenang- wenangnya menukar atau mengubah hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah Bicara sekalipun jika Mahkamah Tinggi mempunyai pandangan yang berbeza dalam penentuan hukuman yang sesuai selagi mana Mahkamah Bicara telah menggunakan prinsip perundangan yang betul dan dalam lingkungan yang dibenarkan oleh undang-undang. [54] Mahkamah ini juga tidak berhasrat untuk mengubah hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim bicara sepertimana prinsip undang-undang yang diputuskan dalam kes DATO' SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2002] 3 CLJ 457; [2002] 3 MLJ 193 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah membuat pemerhatian berikut: “It is of the utmost importance to stress here that the appellate court will not normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence passed by the lower court is manifestly inadequate or excessive or illegal or otherwise not a proper sentence having regard to all the facts disclosed or that the court has clearly erred in applying correct principles in the assessment of sentence”. [55] Saya telah meneliti Keputusan Mahkamah Bicara dan saya dapati Perayu tidak berjaya menunjukkan kekhilafan tersebut yang mewajarkan campurtangan Mahkamah ini. [56] Saya telah teliti Rekod Rayuan dan Alasan Penghakiman dan saya dapati tiada sebab yang mewajarkan Mahkamah ini untuk mengganggu keputusan Mahkamah Bicara. 22 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 [57] Oleh yang demikian, saya sahkan sabitan serta hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan oleh Puan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana Bertarikh pada 11 November 2021 di Muar dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim. t.t. AWG ARMADAJAYA BIN AWG MAHMUD Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Muar Johor Darul Ta’zim Curia Advisari Vult Kaunsel : Bagi pihak Perayu : Vijaya Sandran A/L Tangavellu Bagi pihak Responden : Mustaqim Bin Sukarno bersama Muhammad Azfar Bin Mahmood, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Peguamcara : Bagi pihak Perayu Tetuan Vijaya Sandran & Associates Peguambela Dan Peguamcara No. 38, 1st Floor Jalan Lambak 86000 Kluang Johor. [No. Ruj.: VJ-218-07-2020] 23 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 Bagi pihak Responden Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Timbalan Pendakwaraya Mezzanine Floor Muar Trade Centre, Jalan Petrie 84000 Muar, Johor. Tarikh Pendengaran : 15 Mac 2021 Tarikh Keputusan : 22 Mac 2021 PERUNDANGAN : ➢ Seksyen 172D(1)(c)(ii), 172G, Kanun Acara Jenayah ➢ Seksyen 372A(1) Kanun Keseksaan ➢ seksyen 15 Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Manusia dan Anti penyeludupan Migran BAHAN RUJUKAN : ➢ Criminal Litigation Process, Sweet & Maxwell 3rd Edition di mukasurat 535 – 536 ➢ Archbold (42nd Ed) para 4-480 ➢ The Random House Dictionary of the English Language: The Unabridged Edition.” (1994 edition) ➢ PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING, 2nd edn at pp. 57-58 NAS RUJUKAN : ➢ BHANDULANANDA JAYATILAKE v. PP [1981] 1 LNS 139; [1982] 1 MLJ 83 ➢ DATO' SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2002] 3 CLJ 457; [2002] 3 MLJ 193 ➢ MOHD ABDULLAH ANG SWEE KANG v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1987] CLJ Rep 209 ➢ WONG KENG LIANG v. PP [2013] 1 CLJ 96 ➢ REX v. GRONDKOWSKI [1946] 1 All ER 560 ➢ ABDUL KARIM v. REGINA [1954] 1 LNS 3; [1954] 20 MLJ 86 ➢ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. LOW KOK WAI [1988] 2 CLJ REP 268; [1988] 2 CLJ 105; [1988] 3 MLJ 123, ➢ R v. COSTEN [1989] II Cr App R (s) 182(S) 182 ➢ VAITOS v. R [1981] 4 A Crim R 238 ➢ SAU SOO KIM v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1975] 1 LNS 158 24 [JB-42H-10-08/2020] November 11, 2021 ➢ RAJA IZZUDDIN SHAH v. PP [1978] 1 LNS 165; [1979] 1 MLJ 270, ➢ FU FOO TONG v. PP [1995] 1 SLR 448 ➢ PP v. JAFA BIN DAUD [1981] 1 LNS 28; [1981] 1 MLJ 315 ➢ REX v. GRONDKOWSKI [1946] 1 All ER 560 ➢ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. LOO CHOON FATT [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ 256 ➢ R v. BALL (KENNETH JOHN) [1951] 35 Cr App R 164 ➢ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. GOVINDNAN A/L CHINDEN NAIR [1998] 2 CLJ 370; [1988] 2 MLJ 181 ➢ WONG KAI CHUEN PHILIP v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1990] 1 LNS 146; [1991] 1 MLJ 321 ➢ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. LOW KOK WAI [1988] 2 CLJ Rep 268; [1988] 2 CLJ 105; [1988] 3 MLJ 123 ➢ LEO SAY & ORS v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1985] 2 CLJ 155, ➢ LOH HOCK SENG v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1979] 1 LNS 48; [1980] 2 MLJ 13 ➢ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. OO LENG SWEE & ORS [1981] 1 LNS 109; [1981] 1 MLJ 247 25