MUHAMMAD AZRIEN BIN MAT HUSSIN

MUHAMMAD AZRIEN BIN MAT HUSSIN

Because the second offence arose from a distinct transaction while the accused was serving a separate term, and there was no proximity of time/place nor continuity of action or purpose, the court exercised its discretion under section 292(1) CPC to order the one-year sentence for the second offence to commence at the expiration of the existing seven-year sentence; the aggregate eight-year term did not violate the totality principle.

Citation
AB-83D-1601-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Muhammad Azrien bin Mat Hussin
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 January 2024
Case Number
AB-83D-1601-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing (convicted; Sentence Appealed to High Court)
Outcome
Accused convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Possession of Methamphetamine, Concurrent Versus Consecutive Sentences, Section 292 CPC, Totality Principle, Sentencing Within Prison
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Sentencing Law Procedure Possession of Methamphetamine Concurrent Versus Consecutive Sentences Section 292 CPC Totality Principle +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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Muhammad Azrien bin Mat Hussin

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing (convicted; Sentence Appealed to High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence for the second offence should run concurrently with the existing seven-year term or consecutively after it
  2. 2 Whether a one-year imprisonment term is appropriate for possession of 1.01g methamphetamine committed while serving a sentence
  3. 3 Application of sections 282(d) and 292 CPC and the totality principle

Ratio Decidendi

Because the second offence arose from a distinct transaction while the accused was serving a separate term, and there was no proximity of time/place nor continuity of action or purpose, the court exercised its discretion under section 292(1) CPC to order the one-year sentence for the second offence to commence at the expiration of the existing seven-year sentence; the aggregate eight-year term did not violate the totality principle.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Accused convicted under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for possession of methamphetamine
  • Sentenced to 1 year imprisonment for the second offence, to commence after completion of the seven-year imprisonment imposed in Ipoh Sessions Court case AA-62-35-04/2023