Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Consecutive sentences vs concurrent sentences

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2020

ZAINAL BIN JIDON (NO. KP : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

Citation

JB-41H-29-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-41H-29-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the 13 cheating offences constituted multiple separate transactions causing distinct losses to different victims; therefore consecutive sentences were appropriate. The court reduced each individual sentence from 3 years to 2 years imprisonment in exercise of sentencing discretion due to mitigating factors (including an early plea) but upheld consecutive ordering and maintained one stroke of whipping per count; the appellant was ordered to pay restitution to each victim under Section 426 CPC.
15 Oct 2020

ZAINAL BIN JIDON (NO. KP : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

Citation

JB-41H-35-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-41H-35-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The offences comprised multiple separate acts of cheating causing distinct losses to victims on separate dates and therefore did not constitute one transaction; consecutive sentences were appropriate for separate transactions; guilty plea merited mitigation but its weight was limited by seriousness and public interest; exercising discretion the court reduced each sentence from three years to two years but maintained consecutive operation and retained corporal punishment; restitution to victims ordered under section 426 CrPC.