1. ) LIM Chin Liang (JG-83D-849-12/2024)

L (KANAK-KANAK 4) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENGENALAN [1] Kanak-Kanak 2 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai PESALAH KANAK-KANAK / PKK) telah dipertuduhkan dengan pertuduhan di bawah s.12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan telah mengaku salah. Pertuduhan yang dihadapi oleh PKK adalah seperti berikut: Pertuduhan Pindaan Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 26/12/2024 jam lebih kurang 0100 hrs di bilik bernombor (V3) Victoria KTV, Tingkat 2 No. 10 Jalan Yayasan Kampung Masjid Lama dalam daerah Kluang, dalam negeri Johor, telah ada dalam milikan kamu dadah Ketamine berat bersih 0.02 gram. Dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dibawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan. PKK kemudiannya telah diperintahkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini di bawah s.91(1)(f) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 supaya dihantar ke Sekolah Tunas Bakti selama 2 tahun. [2] Fakta Kes: a) Pada 26/12/2024 jam lebih kurang 0100 hrs, Insp Mohamad Afis Bin Zaniah telah mengetuai pasukan polis dari Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik IPD Kluang telah menahan kamu di dalam Bilik (V3) Victoria KTV, Tingkat 2 No. 10 Jalan Yayasan Kampung Majid Lama 86000 Kluang Johor. b) Insp Mohamad Afis Bin Zaniah telah menjalankan pemeriksaan di dalam bilik kamu berlima duduki dan telah menemui dan merampas di atas meja didalam bilik tersebut

peket plastik lutsinar berisi bahan disyaki dadah Ketamin anggaran berat kasar 0.29 gram ditandakan A. c) Kamu berlima telah ditahan dan barang kes telah dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia Johor Bahru untuk dianalisa. Hasil analisa oleh ahli kimia, (Ahmad Tajudin Bin Zakaria) mendapati berat bersih bahan adalah 0.02 gram yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis 'Ketamin'. d) Hasil siasatan mendapati kamu berlima mempunyai milikan ke atas bahan dadah berbahaya tersebut. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan. "Ketamin" adalah disenaraikan dalam Jadual Pertama Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. [3] Laporan Akhlak yang disediakan oleh Pegawai Akhlak, Pejabat Kebajikan Masyarakat Daerah Kluang telah mengemukakan syor berikut: PERUNTUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG [4] Peruntukan s.12(2) dan (3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 memperuntukkan: Seksyen 12. Sekatan ke atas pengimportan dan pengeksportan beberapa dadah berbahaya tertentu.

Tiada seorang pun boleh berada dalam pemilikannya, jagaannya atau pengawasannya sebarang dadah berbahaya yang boleh disabitkan di bawah Bahagian ini melainkan jika ianya telah diberikan kuasa untuk memilik, menjaga atau mengawasi dadah tersebut atau disifatkan sebagai telah diberi kuasa di bawah Akta ini atau peraturan yang telah dibuat di bawah Akta ini.

Mana-mana orang yang melanggar subseksyen (2) seksyen ini, adalah bersalah atas suatu kesalahan terhadap Akta ini, dan jika disabitkan hendaklah didenda tidak lebih daripada satu ratus ribu ringgit atau dikenakan hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih daripada lima tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali. [5] Manakala perintah yang boleh diberikan oleh Mahkamah ke atas PKK telah diperuntukkan di bawah s.91(1) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001: Seksyen 91. Kuasa Mahkamah bagi Kanak-Kanak apabila kesalahan dibuktikan.

Jika Mahkamah Bagi Kanak-Kanak berpuas hati bahawa suatu kesalahan telah dibuktikan Mahkamah itu hendaklah, sebagai tambahan kepada apa-apa kuasa lain yang boleh dijalankan menurut kuasa Akta ini, mempunyai kuasa untuk-

memberikan amaran kepada dan melepaskan kanak-kanak itu;

melepaskan kanak-kanak itu apabila dia menyempurnakan suatu bon untuk berkelakuan baik dan untuk mematuhi apa-apa syarat yang dikenakan oleh Mahkamah;

memerintahkan supaya kanak-kanak itu diletakkan dalam pemeliharaan seseorang saudara atau orang lain yang layak dan sesuai-

selama apa-apa tempoh yang hendaklah ditetapkan oleh Mahkamah; dan

(ii) dengan apa-apa syarat yang dikenakan oleh Mahkamah;

memerintahkan supaya kanak-kanak itu membayar denda, pampasan atau kos; (da) membuat perintah khidmat masyarakat;

membuat suatu perintah percubaan di bawah seksyen 98;

memerintahkan supaya kanak-kanak itu dihantar ke suatu sekolah diluluskan atau Sekolah Henry Gurney;

[Dipotong oleh Akta A1511/2016]

mengenakan ke atas kanak-kanak itu, jika dia berumur empat belas tahun ke atas kesalahan itu boleh dihukum dengan hukuman pemenjaraan dan tertakluk kepada subseksyen 96(2), apa-apa tempoh pemenjaraan yang boleh dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen. FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG DIAMBIL KIRA OLEH MAHKAMAH [6] Mahkamah mengambil panduan daripada keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Norshahrizan Junaidi v. PP [2016] 1 LNS 17 yang telah memutuskan: [9] In any event, sentencing is an exercise of discretion by the trial Judge. The law simply provides, as in most cases, a spectrum of sentences - from the minimum to the maximum. The trial Court has to choose the appropriate sentence in each case within that spectrum by giving consideration to the peculiar circumstances of each case and all the relevant factors. The only constraint face by the trial Court in exercising its discretion is when the law imposes the only sentence such in the case of murder under section 302 or when the law provides for a minimum sentence in which case the trial Court cannot impose anything less than the minimum. For illustration reference may be made to the following cases: PP v. Leonard Glenn Francis [1989] 2 CLJ Rep 320; [1989] 1 CLJ 972; [1989] 2 MLJ 158; Leong Kok Huat v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ 106; [1998] 6 MLJ 406 and Philip Lau Chee Heng v. PP [1988] 2 CLJ Rep 144; [1988] 2 CLJ 873; [1988] 3 MLJ 107. [7] Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini selaku Mahkamah Bicara mempunyai budi bicara untuk memilih dan memberikan hukuman mengikut kepada peruntukan undang-undang di dalam julat hukuman yang minima dan maksima, tertakluk kepada peruntukan hukuman yang spesifik atau mandatori yang dinyatakan oleh seksyen kesalahan yang berkaitan, dengan mengambil kira keadaan dan latar belakang kes. [8] Di dalam memberikan perintah mengikut kepada peruntukan undang-undang, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Public Prosecutor v Jafa Bin Daud [1981] 1 MLJ 315: A "sentence according to law" means that the sentence must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section, but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles. In assessing sentence, one of the main factors to be considered is whether the convicted person is a first offender. It is for this purpose that before passing sentence, a Magistrate is required to call for evidence or information regarding the background, antecedent and character of the accused. [9] Mahkamah membuat rujukan kepada Courts Criminal Practice 2020 (Sweet & Maxwell): 27-1 Sentencing young offenders is a difficult duty, which involves balancing the seriousness of the offence and offending history, against the welfare and needs of young offenders, many of whom have led highly disrupted lives. The availability of the various orders set out in this chapter partly depend on the age of the offender. In addition, some of the orders can be combined with each other to produce a of individual offenders (see the sentence availability and combination charts. The principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending [penekanan oleh Mahkamah]: Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.37 (see § 25-2). This is, therefore, process. The court must also have regard to the welfare principle: Children and Young Persons Act 1933 s.44 (see § 25-3). [10] Di United Kingdom, sepertimana yang dinyatakan di dalam teks di atas, matlamat utama sistem keadilan jenayah kanak-kanak ialah untuk mencegah berlakunya atau pengulangan sesuatu kesalahan jenayah. Crime and Disorder Act 1998 adalah dirujuk:

Aim of the youth justice system.

It shall be the principal aim of the youth justice system to prevent offending by children and young persons.

In addition to any other duty to which they are subject, it shall be the duty of all persons and bodies carrying out functions in relation to the youth justice system to have regard to that aim. [11] Salah satu pertimbangan yang perlu diambil kira oleh Mahkamah di dalam memberikan perintah ialah kebajikan pesalah kanak-kanak termasuklah mengeluarkan kanak-kanak tersebut daripada persekitaran atau keadaan sekeliling yang tidak baik serta memastikan kanak-kanak tersebut mendapat pendidikan atau latihan yang sewajarnya, peruntukan s.44 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 adalah dirujuk: Principles to be observed by all Courts in dealing with Children and Young Persons 44 General considerations.

Every court in dealing with a child or young person who is brought before it, either as an offender or otherwise, shall have regard to the welfare of the child or young person and shall in a proper case take steps for removing him from undesirable surroundings, and for securing that proper provision is made for his education and training. [12] Mahkamah mengakui prinsip-prinsip ini tidak dinyatakan secara harfiah di dalam peruntukan Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001, tetapi di atas prinsip-prinsip dan semangat ini jugalah Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 digubal, sepertimana yang dapat dilihat daripada Penyata Rasmi Parlimen Dewan Rakyat bertarikh 16 Oktober 2000, di mana Dr. Siti Zaharah Binti Sulaiman semasa pembentangan Rang Undang-Undang Kanak-Kanak 2000 menyatakan: Di samping itu, peruntukan-peruntukan baru yang dicadangkan, menekankan kepentingan terbaik bagi kanak-kanak dan rang undang-undang ini yang turut memberi penekanan kepada aspek pembangunan dan pencegahan dapat dilihat sebagai alat intervensi dan membendung gejala sosial. Rang undang-undang ini merupakan pelengkap kepada usaha-usaha menangani masalah sosial yang sedang dilaksanakan oleh Kementerian Perpaduan Negara dan Pembangunan · Masyarakat melalui pelan induk tindakan sosial (Penekanan oleh Mahkamah) [13] Mengambil kira prinsip-prinsip di atas, di dalam menilai dan mempertimbangkan perintah yang bersesuaian dengan PKK, Mahkamah telah mengambil kira beberapa faktor utama. Latar Belakang PKK [14] Pegawai akhlak telah menyediakan Laporan Akhlak PKK yang kemudiannya telah dibacakan secara bersumpah oleh Pegawai Akhlak dan diakui oleh PKK. Daripada Laporan Akhlak yang dikemukakan, jelas menunjukkan bahawa:

PKK tidak lagi bersekolah dan telah berhenti sekolah di Tingkatan 2 kerana tidak minat belajar;

PKK tidak mempunyai apa-apa kemahiran;

PKK hanya menghabiskan masa bermain game di dalam telefon bimbit pada waktu siang;

PKK akan keluar melepak dengan kawan bermula dari jam 2 petang sehingga 7 malam, selepas itu dari jam 9 malam sehingga jam 12 tengah malam;

PKK tidak dijaga oleh ibu bapa sebaliknya dijaga oleh datuk yang telah lanjut usia; dan

datuk tidak dapat memberikan pendidikan, latihan, atau disiplin dan tidak dapat mengawal PKK. [15] Oleh yang demikian, di dalam mempertimbangkan syor Pegawai Akhlak supaya PKK diberikan Bon Berkelakuan Baik ini, Mahkamah telah mengambil kira hal keadaan kes:

kesalahan melibatkan milikan dadah berbahaya;

tempat kejadian adalah premis hiburan yang sepatutnya tidak dimasuki oleh pelanggan/orang yang belum dewasa/mencapai umur 18 tahun;

kejadian berlaku pada awal pagi;

PKK terlibat dan bergaul dengan pesalah dewasa;

PKK tidak lagi bersekolah. [16] Mahkamah telah mengambil peluang dengan bertanya kepada Pegawai Akhlak sama ada perintah untuk menghantar PKK ke institusi seperti Sekolah Tunas Bakti adalah bersesuaian. Perkara ini telah disahkan oleh Pegawai Akhlak. Bahkan ini dipersetujui oleh kedua-dua Penasihat Kanak-Kanak. [17] Kitaran kehidupan PKK adalah tidak kondusif untuk PKK berubah menjadi lebih baik. PKK memerlukan pendidikan, latihan atau sebarang kemahiran untuk membolehkan PKK hidup berdikari di masa akan datang. Bimbingan, pendidikan, disiplin dan kemahiran yang diperlukan ini tidak diberikan oleh ibu bapa dan keluarga yang hanya membiarkan PKK berbuat sesuka hatinya. Mahkamah ingin melihat PKK menjadi seorang warganegara yang berguna dan inilah yang menjadi batu asas kepada perintah Mahkamah untuk menghantar PKK ke Sekolah Tunas Bakti. [18] Adakah PKK akan mendapat pendidikan atau latihan kemahiran yang lebih baik sekiranya dilepaskan dengan Bon Berkelakuan Baik? Adakah Mahkamah Bicara salah apabila mengutamakan pendidikan dan disiplin untuk membentuk PKK menjadi lebih baik? [19] Bon Berkelakuan Baik adalah pada asasnya suatu bentuk penggantungan hukuman, yang mana pesalah dilepaskan dengan syarat-syarat tertentu yang termaktub di dalam Bon. Sekiranya syarat Bon tersebut dipatuhi, pesalah tidak dikenakan tindakan lanjut tetapi jika syarat Bon dilanggar, pesalah akan dibawa semula ke Mahkamah untuk dihukum dengan kesalahan asal. [20] Bon Berkelakuan Baik hanya betul-betul berkesan sekiranya pesalah mempunyai sistem sokongan keluarga yang baik. Perkara ini diilustrasikan dengan cukup baik oleh kes Teo Siew Peng & 4 Ors v Public Prosecutor [1985] 2 MLJ 125: In the case of all the appellants here, a perusal of the probation reports presented both in the lower court and to this court, show that they come from quite decent families, some of which are large, including children, none of whom had any record of any misconduct or misbehaviour. At the time of the commission of the offence, most of the appellants were gainfully employed. In this court, it is disclosed in the probation report of the first appellant that he is remorseful and that he is gainfully employed in a construction firm. Further, that his employer speaks well of him. His mother is also prepared to be responsible for his future good conduct. In respect of the 2nd appellant, his probation report also shows that he is remorseful and has promised never again to fall afoul of the law, and that he is now gainfully employed in a firm jointly owned by his uncle and his brother; and that members of his family are willing to be responsible for his future good conduct. He is married with a child. In respect of the 3rd appellant who at the time of the commission of the offence was a youthful offender, his probation report shows that his uncle has made efforts to keep him out of trouble by giving him work and that he is presently assisting his mother at her dress-making shop and learning to become a tailor; and also that his mother is prepared to be responsible for his future good conduct. In respect of the 4th appellant, his probation report states that he has always been a reasonable lad and his behaviour at home has given his parents no cause for anxiety. He is also remorseful and his father is prepared to be responsible for his future good conduct. He is also gainfully employed as a construction worker with his father who is a sub-contractor. In respect of the 5th appellant, his probation report states that he has always been trustworthy and his behaviour has given his parents no cause for alarm until the present offence. He is working regularly as an assistant electrician with his uncle. His father is prepared to be responsible for his future good conduct. [21] Begitu juga di dalam kes A Child v Public Prosecutor [2020] MLJU 1394 memutuskan bahawa Bon Berkelakuan Baik tidak bersesuaian di dalam kes di mana ibu bapa atau penjaga tidak dapat menjaga dan mengawasi pesalah kanak-kanak dengan baik menyatakan: I found (a), (b) and (c) unsuitable on the followings grounds; The Child has committed an offence with an older Child. The offences that he committed are of a nature that carries a minimum of 1-year imprisonment and a maximum of 7 years and whipping (to a maximum of 24 strokes). His biological mother is obviously unable and equally unsuitable to take care of him, for reasons among others, she is personally serving sentence for drugs related offences, had just delivered a baby and has not taken care of the Child for quite a while. The 2 Guardians, on the other hand, are unable to guide the Child by not ensuring his education continues as well as unable to know his activities. They admitted to the Welfare Officer (as per the content of P10) that they are unable to control the Child. Kepentingan Awam [22] Kepentingan awam merupakan salah satu faktor yang perlu diambil kira oleh mahkamah sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman atau perintah. Di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256 Mahkamah telah memutuskan: One of the main considerations in the assessment of sentence is of course the question of public interest. On this point I need only quote a passage from the judgment of Hilbery J. in Rex v Kenneth John Ball 35 Cr App R 164 as follows: "In deciding the appropriate sentence a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced, not only with the object of punishing crime, but also in the hope of preventing it. A proper sentence, passed in public, serves the public interest in two ways. It may deter others who might be tempted to try crime as seeming to offer easy money on the supposition, that if the offender is caught and brought to justice, the punishment will be negligible. Such a sentence may also deter the particular criminal from committing a crime again, or induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living. Our law does not, therefore, fix the sentence for a particular crime, but fixes a maximum sentence and leaves it to the court to decide what is, within that maximum, the appropriate sentence for each criminal in the particular circumstances of each case. Not only in regard to each crime, but in regard to each criminal, the court has the right and the duty to decide whether to be lenient or severe." Presidents and Magistrates are often inclined quite naturally to be over-sympathetic to the accused. This is a normal psychological reaction to the situation in which the lonely accused is seen facing an array of witnesses with authority. The mitigation submitted by a convicted person will also normally bring up problems of family hardship and the other usual problems of living. In such a situation the courts might perhaps find it difficult to decide as to what sentence should be imposed so that the convicted person may not be further burdened with additional hardship. This in my view is a wrong approach. The correct approach is to strike a balance, as far as possible, between the interests of the public and the interests of the accused. Lord Goddard L.C.J. in Rex v Grondkowski [1946] 1 All ER 560 561 offered some good advice when he said: "The judge must consider the interests of justice as well as the interests of the prisoners. It is too often nowadays thought, or seems to be thought, that the interests of justice means only the interests of the prisoners." [22] Memandangkan kes ini melibatkan kanak-kanak, Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Teo Siew Peng [supra] yang memutuskan: I further consider that, particularly bearing in mind the quotation to which reference has been made in the case of R. v. Smith, there is no conflict between the public interest and that of the young offenders and that the public have no greater interest than that they should become good citizens. [23] Tiada sekelumit keraguan di dalam minda Mahkamah bahawa perintah ke Sekolah Tunas Bakti adalah bersesuaian bagi tujuan ini dan justeru itu, kehendak kepentingan awam dapat dipenuhi dengan membantu PKK menjadi seorang warganegara yang baik. Pengakuan Salah PKK [24] Mahkamah mengambil di dalam kes ini PPK telah mengaku bersalah seawal mungkin dan Mahkamah Bicara mempunyai budibicara untuk memberikan diskaun kepada Perayu yang mengaku salah sepertimana yang dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Agung di dalam kes Mohamed Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v Public Prosecutor [1988] 1 MLJ 167. [25] Namun pemberian diskaun ini adalah suatu prinsip am yang tertakluk kepada pengecualian. Pengecualian-pengecualian ini telah digariskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Bachik Bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor [2004] 2 MLJ 534 yang memutuskan: 17 The learned judge appears to have taken the view that credit should be given in every case where a person pleads guilty. The position in law is that it is generally accepted that an accused person should be given credit or discount for pleading guilty (see Sau Soo Kim v Public Prosecutor [1975] 2 MLJ 134; Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman bin Ahmad [1993] 1 MLJ 74; Public Prosecutor v Ravindran & Ors [1993] 1 MLJ 45). The discount that is given is normally a reduction of the sentence by about a third of what would otherwise have been imposed (see Mohamed Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v Public Prosecutor [1988] 1 MLJ 167; PP v Muhari bin Mohd Jani & Anor [1996] 3 MLJ 116; Christopher Khoo Ewe Cheng v Public Prosecutor [1998] 3 MLJ 881). However, this is not a strict rule as the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse to grant any discount in an appropriate case (see Zaidon Shariff v Public Prosecutor [1996] 4 CLJ 441; Public Prosecutor v Leo Say & Ors [1985] 2 CLJ 155). Its application in favour of an accused depends on the facts and circumstances of each case (see Wong Kai Chuen Philip v Zaidon Shariff [1991] 1 MLJ 321). Thus, as lucidly explained by Charles JA in Leigh Nicholas Donnelly v R (1997) 91 A Crim R 550 at p 554: A court's attitude towards the fact of a plea of guilty is expected to act as an encouragement to enter such a plea. The issue with which the court is to be concerned is what weight should be given to it in the circumstances. 18 The circumstances in which a guilty plea will not have any weight are varied. The severity of the offence committed may outweigh the mitigating effect of a guilty plea (see Loh Hock Seng & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1980] 2 MLJ 13; Public Prosecutor v Oo Leng Swee & Ors [1981] 1 MLJ 247). Where public interest demands a deterrent sentence in the circumstances of a particular case, then the effect of a guilty plea must also give way (see Sim Gek Yong v Public Prosecutor [1995] 1 SLR 537; Public Prosecutor v Govindnan a/l Chinden Nair [1998] 2 MLJ 181). A guilty plea cannot also be a powerful mitigating factor when effectively no defence to the charge is available to the accused (see Leo Say v Low Kok Wai [1988] 3 MLJ 123). If a plea of guilty is made too late in the trial it may also cease to have mitigating effect (see Public Prosecutor v Dato Nallakaruppan Solaimalai [1999] 2 CLJ 596). The absence of mitigating factors in favour of the accused like, for instance, the existence of previous convictions may also deprive the guilty plea of its effect. There can therefore be no automatic rule that a guilty plea on its own entitles an accused to a lesser punishment (see Public Prosecutor v Tia Ah Leng [2000] 5 MLJ 401). [26] Mahkamah Rayuan selanjutnya menyatakan keadaan-keadaan di mana pengakuan salah tidak begitu diambil kira seperti:

keseriusan kesalahan;

kepentingan awam menuntut supaya hukuman deteren diberikan;

apabila tertuduh tidak mempunyai apa-apa pembelaan atas pertuduhan;

apabila pengakuan salah dibuat pada peringkat akhir perbicaraan; dan

sekiranya tertuduh mempunyai rekod sabitan lampau. Keseriusan Kesalahan [27] Kes melibatkan pemilikan dan penyalahgunaan dadah merupakan kesalahan yang serius. Mahkamah di dalam kes Loo Choon Fatt [supra] menyatakan: It is common sense to say that behind these legislative exercises was the government's realisation albeit gradual, of the problem of drug abuse in this country, the degenerating effect of the misuse of dangerous drugs and the attendant dangers it has posed to society itself. The amendments passed by Parliament therefore reflect the public policy. It must be presumed that behind the public policy is the consideration of public interest. The change in the attitude of the legislature itself during the last three years reflects the seriousness of the problem. In my view the courts will not be performing their functions honestly if the seriousness of the situation is not reflected in the sentence imposed or if the sentence appears to defeat the object of the statute. This is not saying that the courts in the treatment of drug offences should at all times be severe. Each case has to be determined on its own merits. But in every case the courts must be realistic and rational. [28] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Tia Ah Leng v Public Prosecutor [2004] 4 MLJ 249: 9 It is true that the general rule is, when imposing a sentence, the court should take into consideration the fact that an accused person who has pleaded guilty be given certain credit and discount, but we are of the view that there are exceptions to this rule. In our opinion, one of these are the offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The Government and the legislature have taken very serious views in the abuse of usage of dangerous drugs. Drug addictions are rampant and the Government as well as the legislature have tried to curb these addictions especially amongst youths but met with little success. Death sentences and heavy penalties have been introduced but we find drug addicts everywhere. The addiction to drugs have led to other offences such as thefts, burglary and snatch thefts. Some of these offences lead to serious consequences. We have read in the newspapers that some drug addicts have gone to the extent of hurting their own families such as their mothers, sisters and grandmothers in order to get some money to purchase the drugs to support their addictions. Recently, a woman died when a snatcher snatched her handbag and she was dragged together with the handbag some distance away and as a result of that she died. Kepentingan Awam Menuntut Hukuman Deteren [29] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Pendakwa Raya lwn Yap Sooi Long [2016] 3 MLJ 467 telah memutuskan: [17] Jenayah seperti yang dilakukan oleh responden semestinya terjumlah dalam kategori jenayah yang terhadap jenayah yang sedemikian. Lawton LJ dalam kes R v Sargent (1974) 60 Cr App R 74 di ms 77 menyatakan: There is however, another aspect of retribution which is overlooked: it is that society through the courts must show its abhorrence of particular types of crime and the only way of which they, the courts can do this is by the sentence they pass. The courts do not have to reflect public opinion. On the other hand, courts must not disregard it. Perhaps the main duty of the court is to lead public opinion. [18] Pada hemat kami, jenayah yang dilakukan oleh responden semestinya terjumlah dalam kategori jenayah yang dimaksudkan oleh Lawton LJ di atas. Ini kerana seperti yang dikatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Tia Ah Leng v Public Prosecutor [2004] 4 MLJ 249; [2004] 4 CLJ 77: The Government and the Legislature have taken very serious views in the abuse of usage of dangerous drugs. Drug addiction are rampant and the Government as well as the Legislative have tried to curb these addictions especially amongst youths but met with little success. Death sentences and heavy penalties have been introduced but we find drug addicts everywhere. The addiction of drugs have led to other offences such as thefts, burglary and snatch theft. Some of these offences lead to serious consequences. We have read in the newspapers that some addicts have gone to the extent of hurting their own families such as their mothers, sisters and grandmothers in order to get some money to purchase drugs to support their addictions. [30] Keperluan untuk memberikan hukuman atau perintah yang menekankan elemen kecaman dan kutukan sebagai perlindungan kepada masyarakat juga ditekankan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Abdul Halim Ishak & satu lagi [2013] 9 CLJ 559: [17] Melihat dengan teliti keputusan-keputusan mahkamah-mahkamah Malaysia berhubung dengan hukuman yang dijatuhkan terhadap pesalah-pesalah yang berkaitan dengan dadah berbahaya, aliran sama ("common thread") yang ketara dalam kes-kes tersebut ialah bahawa hukuman yang membawa kesan pencegahan perlu dijatuhkan dan kepentingan awam perlu diutamakan. Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Adam Atan v. PP [2009] 1 CLJ 33, telah sekali lagi menegaskan prinsip ini melalui Gopal Sri Ram HMR (sebagaimana beliau ketika itu), apabila beliau berkata di ms. 36: [7] There is no gain say that drug offenders are a menace to society. They are nothing less than serpents on the front lawn of justice and should be dealt with accordingly. Everyday we read in the newspapers about the efforts of the law enforcement agencies in seizing large quantities of dangerous drugs and of the deleterious nature of these drugs which is visited upon members of our society, in particular our youth. The courts will be failing in their duty if they do not take a serious view towards the offences of this nature. The sentence imposed must not only be commensurate with the offence in this case but must also stop would be offenders dead in their tracks from committing it. [18] Kesan buruk gejala dadah kepada negara dan orang awam telah diambil perhatian serius oleh hakim-hakim terbilang Malaysia semenjak tahun 1970-an lagi. Dalam kes-kes Loh Hock Seng & Anor v. PP [1979] 1 LNS 48; [1980] 2 MLJ 13 dan PP v. Loo Choo Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ 256, misalnya, penekanan diberikan bahawa hukuman yang mempunyai kesan pencegahan perlu dijatuhkan terhadap pesalah-pesalah dadah. Ini adalah sejajar dengan hasrat Kerajaan dan Parlimen yang telah mengambil pelbagai langkah serius untuk mencegah dan mengawal ancaman pengedaran dan penggunaan dadah serta jenayah-jenayah yang berkaitan dengannya. Oleh itu, mahkamah perlu memainkan peranannya dengan menjatuhkan hukuman yang berat dan mencegah seperti yang ditetapkan oleh Akta. [19] Pada pandangan mahkamah ini, hukuman berat juga perlu dijatuhkan terhadap pesalah-pesalah dadah bagi menekankan elemen kutukan atau kecaman ("denunciation"). Elemen kutukan boleh dijelaskan seperti berikut:

3.9 Denunciation, in the context of sentencing, is achieved by the imposition of a sentence the severity of which makes a statement that the offence in question is not to be tolerated by society either in general or in a specific instance. The statement made may be directed at any combination of the public at large, victims, potential offenders and individual offenders. In part its aims are similar to that of deterrence. It has also been seen to be associated with retribution. (Lihat Law Reform Commission New South Wales, supra ). [20] Dalam konteks penghukuman terhadap pesalah-pesalah dadah, pada pandangan mahkamah ini, justifikasi bagi prinsip "denunciation" dijadikan salah satu tujuan penghukuman ialah untuk menunjukkan bahawa hukuman berat yang dijatuhkan itu adalah mencerminkan "a symbolic, collective statement that the offender's conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society's basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law" (lihat Ryan v. The Queen [2001] 206 CLR 267, di ms. 118). Pada pandangan mahkamah, elemen kutukan perlu diberi penekanan kerana perbuatan pesalah atau pesalah-pesalah tersebut telah menjejaskan kesejahteraan masyarakat yang merupakan nilai-nilai murni untuk semua ahli masyarakat. Mereka telah disifatkan oleh hakim-hakim terbilang Malaysia sebagai "engineers of evil and pedlars of death" (per Raja Azlan Shah, CJ Malaya (sebagaimana Baginda ketika itu) dalam kes Loh Hock Seng & Anor v. PP (supra ) dan "a scourge to society" (per Abdool Cader J (sebagaimana beliau ketika itu) dalam kes PP v. Yeoh Eng Khuan [1975] 1 LNS 138; [1976] 1 MLJ 258). Kerajaan pula menganggap mereka sebagai "peniaga maut najis dadah". [21] Tidak dapat dipertikaikan bahawa kesalahan yang berkaitan dengan dadah adalah merupakan satu kesalahan yang serius yang boleh mengancam keselamatan dan ketenteraman negara serta kesihatan umum. Dadah telah diisytiharkan sebagai musuh nombor satu negara oleh kerajaan pada tahun 1983. Justeru, jika mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman yang ringan kepada satu kesalahan yang ditetapkan melalui Parlimen sebagai serius, sudah tentu perlindungan sewajarnya tidak dapat diberikan kepada orang ramai. Dalam kes Yusmarin Samsudin v. PP (supra) mahkamah menegaskan: The severity of sentence can only be to reflect Parliament's intention that conviction for being in possession of a large amount of any form of prohibited drugs must commensurate with the sentence to be passed on the peculiar facts of each case. [31] Mengambil kira nas-nas di atas yang menegaskan dengan bersungguh-sungguh bahawa kepentingan awam menuntut supaya hukuman berbentuk deteren dan pencegahan dikenakan, perintah yang bersesuaian dengan prinsip ini ialah perintah Sekolah Tunas Bakti yang diperintahkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini. Ketiadaan Pembelaan [32] Ketiadaan apa-apa pembelaan atau justifikasi kepada perbuatan jenayah PKK merupakan salah satu faktor untuk tidak memberikan sebarang diskaun kepada hukuman PKK. Di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Wai [1988] 3 MLJ 123 telah diputuskan: In the present case, the only mitigating factor is the accused's plea of guilty. It is a principle of sentencing that whenever possible the court should take into account as a mitigating factor the fact that the accused has pleaded guilty. The extent to which a plea of guilty is a mitigating factor must depend on the facts of each case, and it cannot be a powerful mitigating factor when effectively no defence to the charge was available to the accused. (see Archbold, 42nd Ed, para 4-480 citing R v Davis (1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 168). Mahkamah di dalam kes di atas telah menjatuhkan hukuman gantung ke atas Tertuduh bagi kesalahan s.39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 setelah Tertuduh mengaku salah, walaupun ketika itu Mahkamah mempunyai pilihan sama ada untuk memberikan hukuman penjara seumur hidup dan sebatan ataupun hukuman gantung, kerana Mahkamah mengambil kira bahawa Tertuduh tiada apa-apa pembelaan bagi kesalahan tersebut. [33] Begitu juga di dalam kes Wong Kai Chuen Philip v Public Prosecutor [1991] 1 MLJ 321: In making these comments, I do not dissent from the principle applied by the senior district judge that the voluntary surrender by an offender and a plea of guilty by him in court are factors that can be taken into account in mitigation as they may be evidence of remorse and a willingness to accept punishment for his wrong doing. However, I think that their relevance and the weight to be placed on them must depend on the circumstances of each case. I do not see any mitigation value in a robber surrendering to the police after he is surrounded and has no means of escape, or much mitigation value in a professional man turning himself in in the face of absolute knowledge that the game is up. KESIMPULAN [34] Setelah Mahkamah yang mulia ini telah menilai kesesuaian perintah-perintah di bawah s.91(1) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001, serta mengambil kira segala faktor-faktor yang telah dihuraikan di atas, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa perintah di bawah s.91(1)(f) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 supaya PKK dihantar ke Sekolah Tunas Bakti selama 2 tahun adalah wajar. Disediakan oleh: MUSTAQIM BIN SUKARNO MAJISTRET MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET KLUANG