NGUYEN VAN TIEN

NGUYEN VAN TIEN

The court held that s.68(2)(c) should not be read to multiply the statutory minimum per every individual part in a manner that produces an unreasonable or absurd aggregate; the minimum RM150,000 applies to an offence involving a fully protected animal or its parts/derivatives as a unitary sentencing unit rather than mechanically per listed fragment. Applying that interpretation and considering mitigation and proportionality the Sessions Court's fine of RM300,000 was reasonable and is affirmed, but the default imprisonment and substantive custodial term were excessive and were reduced to 12 months (default) and 24 months (custodial) respectively.

Citation
CB-42ES-1-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Nguyen Van Tien
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 September 2024
Case Number
CB-42ES-1-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Prosecution appeal dismissed; accused's appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Statutory Interpretation, Default Imprisonment, Penal Statute Construction, Wildlife Trafficking
Source Language
Malay/English
Wildlife Conservation Law Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Sentencing Law Sentencing Default Imprisonment Penal Statute Construction Wildlife Trafficking

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Nguyen Van Tien

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the level of fine imposed by the Sessions Court was a legal error
  2. 2 Whether the default imprisonment imposed for non-payment of the fine was lawful and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the substantive custodial sentence was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that s.68(2)(c) should not be read to multiply the statutory minimum per every individual part in a manner that produces an unreasonable or absurd aggregate; the minimum RM150,000 applies to an offence involving a fully protected animal or its parts/derivatives as a unitary sentencing unit rather than mechanically per listed fragment. Applying that interpretation and considering mitigation and proportionality the Sessions Court's fine of RM300,000 was reasonable and is affirmed, but the default imprisonment and substantive custodial term were excessive and were reduced to 12 months (default) and 24 months (custodial) respectively.

Court Disposition

Prosecution appeal dismissed; accused's appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Affirmed fine of RM300000.00
  • Default imprisonment for non-payment of fine reduced to 12 months