PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya FAISHAH BIN ISAHAK

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya FAISHAH BIN ISAHAK

The High Court allowed the prosecution's appeal because the magistrate failed to give proper weight to the victim's impact statement under s183A and understated the public interest in deterring domestic violence; being a first offender and pleading guilty did not preclude a short custodial sentence. The magistrate's discharge with warning was therefore set aside and substituted with 7 days imprisonment and RM500 fine (14 days default).

Citation
BA-41LB-10-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Public Prosecutor; Respondent/accused: Faishah bin Isahak
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 April 2021
Case Number
BA-41LB-10-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Hearing and Judgment on Prosecution's Appeal Against Magistrate's Discharge With Warning
Outcome
Appeal allowed; magistrate's discharge with warning set aside and sentence substituted
Legal Topics
Assault Causing Hurt (s334), Enhanced Penalty for Injury to Wife (s326 A), Sentencing, Victim Impact Statements (s183 A), Magistrate's Discretion and Appellate Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Family Law Domestic Violence Criminal Procedure Assault Causing Hurt (s334) Enhanced Penalty for Injury to Wife (s326 A) Sentencing Victim Impact Statements (s183 A) +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Appellant

Faishah bin Isahak

Respondent/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Hearing and Judgment on Prosecution's Appeal Against Magistrate's Discharge With Warning

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in releasing the accused with a warning under s173A(2)(a) instead of imposing a custodial or other substantive sentence
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate failed to consider the victim impact statement under s183A
  3. 3 Whether public interest and seriousness of domestic violence justified a custodial sentence despite offender being a first offender

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the prosecution's appeal because the magistrate failed to give proper weight to the victim's impact statement under s183A and understated the public interest in deterring domestic violence; being a first offender and pleading guilty did not preclude a short custodial sentence. The magistrate's discharge with warning was therefore set aside and substituted with 7 days imprisonment and RM500 fine (14 days default).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; magistrate's discharge with warning set aside and sentence substituted

Orders

  • Allow prosecution's appeal
  • Set aside magistrate's order dated 27.11.2019 releasing accused with a warning under s173A(2)(a) CPC