1. ) NUR BAKTI BIN ABD. RAHMAN 2. ) HERMAN

1. ) NUR BAKTI BIN ABD. RAHMAN 2. ) HERMAN

The Court held the High Court erred by over-emphasising guilty pleas and failing to account for the statutory amendment, seriousness of migrant smuggling (including threat to security and reputation), public interest deterrence and sentencing trends; appellate intervention was justified and the sentences were increased to 8 years imprisonment for each respondent, to run from date of arrest, taking into account their ages.

Citation
B-05(H)-85-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant (prosecutor): Pendakwa Raya; Respondent: Nur Bakti bin Abd. Rahman; Respondent: Herman
Court
H
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 November 2024
Case Number
B-05(H)-85-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (appeal Against Sentence) / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial court sentences set aside and substituted
Legal Topics
Migrant Smuggling, Sentencing Principles, Guilty Plea Discount, Public Interest and Deterrence, SOSMA Listing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Immigration Law Sentencing Law National Security Law Migrant Smuggling Sentencing Principles Guilty Plea Discount Public Interest and Deterrence +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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Appellant (prosecutor)

Nur Bakti bin Abd. Rahman

Respondent

Herman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (appeal Against Sentence) / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 4-year custodial sentence was manifestly inadequate or wrong in principle
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge gave excessive weight to guilty pleas and failed to consider seriousness and public interest
  3. 3 Proper sentencing range under s26A ATIPSOM after 2022 amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the High Court erred by over-emphasising guilty pleas and failing to account for the statutory amendment, seriousness of migrant smuggling (including threat to security and reputation), public interest deterrence and sentencing trends; appellate intervention was justified and the sentences were increased to 8 years imprisonment for each respondent, to run from date of arrest, taking into account their ages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial court sentences set aside and substituted

Orders

  • Allow prosecution appeal
  • Set aside the 4-year imprisonment sentences imposed by the High Court