MUHAMMAD AFIQ BIN MUHAMAD SHARIF

MUHAMMAD AFIQ BIN MUHAMAD SHARIF

Given the gravity of repeated sexual offences against child victims, including incest, and the need for deterrence and protection of the public, the court held that the sentencing court did not err in imposing substantial custodial terms and corporal punishment; the appellant's mitigation and guilty plea did not justify substantial reduction and sentences for distinct offences were properly dealt with separately with Counts 2 and 3 running concurrently; total caning reduced to statutory maximum 24 strokes under section 288(1).

Citation
WA-42JSKH-9-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/accused: Muhammad Affiq bin Muhamad Sharif; Respondent/prosecution: Pendakwa Raya (Jabatan Peguam Negara, Unit Pendakwaan Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Case Number
WA-42JSKH-9-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences of Sessions Court and High Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Rape, Incest, Sentencing Mitigation, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Corporal Punishment Limit
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Child Protection Sentencing Law Rape Incest Sentencing Mitigation Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Affiq bin Muhamad Sharif

Appellant/accused

Pendakwa Raya (Jabatan Peguam Negara, Unit Pendakwaan Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur)

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for multiple rape offences involving child victims and incest?
  2. 2 Whether sentences for distinct offences should run concurrently or consecutively
  3. 3 Extent of mitigation for guilty plea and personal mitigation (age, family responsibilities, remorse)

Ratio Decidendi

Given the gravity of repeated sexual offences against child victims, including incest, and the need for deterrence and protection of the public, the court held that the sentencing court did not err in imposing substantial custodial terms and corporal punishment; the appellant's mitigation and guilty plea did not justify substantial reduction and sentences for distinct offences were properly dealt with separately with Counts 2 and 3 running concurrently; total caning reduced to statutory maximum 24 strokes under section 288(1).

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences of Sessions Court and High Court affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and sentences of the Sessions Court and High Court affirmed.
  • Count 1: 5 years imprisonment from remand date 12.7.2021, 2 strokes of the rotan, counselling in prison and 2 years police supervision after release.