RAJA HASROL BIN RAJA IBRAHIM (NO. K/P: 860311-29-6233)

RAJA HASROL BIN RAJA IBRAHIM (NO. K/P: 860311-29-6233)

The court refused the s.310 KTJ application because the supporting affidavit failed to disclose the strong grounds required for extension of time, thereby limiting the appeal to sentence only; on the sentence appeal the High Court found no error in the Sessions Court's exercise of discretion, held the 11‑year term with two strokes was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, planning and violence in the robbery, and therefore affirmed the sentence.

Citation
DA-42H-14-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Raja Hasrol bin Raja Ibrahim; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 November 2021
Case Number
DA-42H-14-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal Against Sentence; Application Under S.310 KTJ for Extension of Time to Appeal Conviction
Outcome
Application for extension of time under s.310 KTJ dismissed; appeal limited to sentence; appeal against sentence dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Extension of Time to File Appeal (s.310 Ktj), Appeal Against Sentence, Section 395 Penal Code
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Sentencing Robbery Extension of Time to File Appeal (s.310 Ktj) Appeal Against Sentence Section 395 Penal Code

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

Parties

Raja Hasrol bin Raja Ibrahim

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal Against Sentence; Application Under S.310 KTJ for Extension of Time to Appeal Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave under s.310 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah should be granted to allow late appeal against conviction
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court was manifestly excessive or erroneous
  3. 3 Proper sentencing principles including public interest and deterrence

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the s.310 KTJ application because the supporting affidavit failed to disclose the strong grounds required for extension of time, thereby limiting the appeal to sentence only; on the sentence appeal the High Court found no error in the Sessions Court's exercise of discretion, held the 11‑year term with two strokes was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, planning and violence in the robbery, and therefore affirmed the sentence.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time under s.310 KTJ dismissed; appeal limited to sentence; appeal against sentence dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Orders

  • Application under s.310 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dismissed
  • Appeal against sentence dismissed