15 Dec 2025
The High Court refused to interfere: the Sessions Courts properly exercised sentencing discretion, the sentences were within statutory limits, and consecutive sentences were justified because the offences involved different times, places and victims; no legal error or manifest excess was shown.
15 Oct 2025
The Sessions Court erred in principle by failing to apply the Abdullah Ang approach (determine sentence after trial then apply a 1/4–1/3 discount for guilty plea); applying that principle and weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, the appropriate sentence is four years and six months' imprisonment from date of arrest with three strokes of whipping affirmed.
26 Jun 2025
Given the unreserved guilty plea, admitted facts and identified exhibits, the court lawfully convicted under section 392; sentencing within the statutory maximum was appropriate because the offence was serious, committed in public, and public interest and deterrence outweighed personal mitigation, although a plea discount was applied by starting sentence from date of arrest. Thus the imposed sentence of five years imprisonment and one sebat is proportionate and lawful.