[ ] 1. ) SUMARDI BIN AHMAD 2. ) ABDUL MUZIL BIN KHALID DIN

[ ] 1. ) SUMARDI BIN AHMAD 2. ) ABDUL MUZIL BIN KHALID DIN

The Court allowed the prosecution's appeal, finding the session court's three-year sentence was manifestly inadequate and failed to give sufficient weight to public interest, deterrence, and aggravating features (premeditation and impersonation); the appropriate sentence is seven years' imprisonment for each...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-42H-28-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Respondent: SUMARDI BIN AHMAD; Respondent: ABDUL MUZIL BIN KHALID DIN; Appellant: PENDAKWA RAYA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 June 2022
Case Number
BA-42H-28-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Sentence Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in favour of the prosecution; sentence increased
Legal Topics
Robbery, Group Robbery, Impersonation of Police, Sentence Enhancement, Deterrence, Guilty Plea Mitigation
Criminal Law Sentencing Robbery Group Robbery Impersonation of Police Sentence Enhancement Deterrence Guilty Plea Mitigation

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUMARDI BIN AHMAD

Respondent

ABDUL MUZIL BIN KHALID DIN

Respondent

PENDAKWA RAYA

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Sentence Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of three years imposed by the trial court was manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to give proper weight to public interest and deterrence in sentencing
  3. 3 Whether the guilty plea and personal circumstances justified a reduced sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the prosecution's appeal, finding the session court's three-year sentence was manifestly inadequate and failed to give sufficient weight to public interest, deterrence, and aggravating features (premeditation and impersonation); the appropriate sentence is seven years' imprisonment for each accused, to run from date of arrest (18.06.2021).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in favour of the prosecution; sentence increased

Orders

  • Set aside the sentence of three (3) years imprisonment imposed by the trial court and substitute with seven (7) years imprisonment commencing 18.06.2021 for each respondent