PENDAKWARAYA 1. MUHAMMAD NOORSUZAIDEE BIN ZAINUDDIN 2. MOHD SAUFI BIN HASHIM

PENDAKWARAYA 1. MUHAMMAD NOORSUZAIDEE BIN ZAINUDDIN 2. MOHD SAUFI BIN HASHIM

The Sessions Judge had given excessive weight to the guilty plea and failed adequately to consider public interest and deterrence. Given the particular gravity of the robberies (impersonation of police, handcuffing and prolonged ransacking of a household including a baby at predawn hours) and absence of extenuating factors, the six-year term was manifestly inadequate; the appropriate sentence for the 1st respondent is ten years' imprisonment for each charge, to run concurrently, with whipping sustained, from date of arrest.

Citation
JENAYAH BA-42H-18-02/2019 dan BA-42H-17-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Public Prosecutor; Respondent: Muhammad Noorsuzaidee bin Zainuddin; Respondent: Mohd Saufi bin Hashim
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Case Number
JENAYAH BA-42H-18-02/2019 dan BA-42H-17-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (sentence) / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal for consecutive sentences dismissed; sentence against 1st respondent enhanced on each charge.
Legal Topics
Robbery Under Section 395 Penal Code, Guilty Plea Discount, Public Interest and Deterrence in Sentencing, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Impersonation of Police
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sentencing Property Crime Robbery Under Section 395 Penal Code Guilty Plea Discount Public Interest and Deterrence in Sentencing Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences Impersonation of Police

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Appellant

Muhammad Noorsuzaidee bin Zainuddin

Respondent

Mohd Saufi bin Hashim

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (sentence) / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original six-year sentences were manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Whether sentences on multiple charges should run consecutively or concurrently
  3. 3 Whether the guilty plea entitled the accused to a reduced sentence as of right

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Judge had given excessive weight to the guilty plea and failed adequately to consider public interest and deterrence. Given the particular gravity of the robberies (impersonation of police, handcuffing and prolonged ransacking of a household including a baby at predawn hours) and absence of extenuating factors, the six-year term was manifestly inadequate; the appropriate sentence for the 1st respondent is ten years' imprisonment for each charge, to run concurrently, with whipping sustained, from date of arrest.

Court Disposition

Appeal for consecutive sentences dismissed; sentence against 1st respondent enhanced on each charge.

Orders

  • Appeal seeking consecutive sentences dismissed
  • Sentence against the 1st respondent enhanced to 10 years imprisonment for each charge