1. ) Mohamad Azrul Azham Bin Mohd Rolzaman (BF-62RS-8-05/2024)

V MOHAMMAD AZRUL AZHAM BIN MOHD ROLZAMAN (NO. K/P: 010707-10-1737) &

MOHD HAFIZUDIN BIN MOHD SHAH (NO. K/P: 931128-14-6099)

1.1 Pada 17 Mei 2024, 2 orang kena tuduh (“OKT-OKT”) di dalam kes ini telah dipertuduhkan dengan 1 pertuduhan di hadapan Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Kubu Bharu bagi 1 kesalahan rompakan berkumpulan bersenjata yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 395 dan dibaca bersama seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan.

1.2 Pertuduhan serta hukuman telah dibacakan dan diterangkan kepada OKT-OKT dalam Bahasa Malaysia dan OKT-OKT telah mengaku salah atas pertuduhan tersebut serta faham sifat dan akibat pengakuannya. Pendakwaan S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg dikendalikan oleh TPR Puan Asmah Che Wan manakala OKT-OKT tidak diwakili peguam.

1.3 Atas pengakuan salah OKT-OKT tersebut, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ini telah pada 17 Mei 2024 mendapati OKT-OKT bersalah dan disabitkan atas pertuduhan tersebut dan seterusnya menjatuhkan hukuman penjara 10 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan 4 sebatan rotan.

1.4 OKT-OKT tidak berpuashati atas hukuman tersebut dan telah pada 21 Mei 2024 memfailkan satu notis rayuan yang merayu atas hukuman agar dapat diringankan.

2.1 OKT telah dipertuduhkan dengan pertuduhan seperti yang berikut: “Bahawa kamu pada 19/04/2024 jam lebih kurang pukul 03.00 pagi di kedai serbaneka seven cafe (Seven-Eleven) Jalan Bunga Kertas, Bukit Sentosa, Dalam Daerah Hulu Selangor, Di Dalam Negeri Selangor, telah melakukan rompak berkumpulan terhadap Azwina Binti Ahmad Zamberi, no. K/P: 021215-13-0738 dengan merompak wang tunai RM85.00/- dan sekotak rokok dunhill bernilai RM17.20/- dengan menggunakan senjata berbahaya iaitu spanar boleh laras dan adalah dengan ini telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 395 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama-sama dengan seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan. S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg Hukuman bagi seksyen 395 – hukuman bagi rompak berkumpulan barang siapa melakukan rompakan-berkumpulan hendaklah dihukum dengan pemenjaraan yang boleh sampai dua puluh tahun, dan hendaklah juga dikenakan sebat. Hukuman bagi seksyen 397 – hukuman rompakan dengan bersenjata atau rompakan serta mencuba menyebabkan kematian atau cedera parah jika siapa waktu melakukan atau cuba melakukan rompak, pesalah itu bersenjatakan atau menggunakan apa-apa senjata maut, atau menyebabkan cedera parah kepada mana-mana orang, atau mencuba menyebabkan kematian kepada mana-mana orang, maka pesalah itu hendaklah dikenakan sebat, selain dari apa-apa hukuman yang ia boleh dikenakan di bawah mana-mana seksyen lain kanun ini.

2.2 Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada seksyen 390 dan 391 Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “Seksyen 390 – Robbery

In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

Theft is “robbery”, if, in order to commit theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. “seksyen 391 - Gang-robbery. S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg When two or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and of persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to two or more, every person so committing, attempting, or aiding, is said to commit “gang robbery”.

2.3 Seksyen 395 Kanun Keseksaan selanjutnya menyatakan seperti berikut: “Punishment for gang-robbery. Whoever commits gang-robbery shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.”

2.4 Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “Robbery when armed or with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. If at the time of committing or attempting to commit robbery, the offender is armed with or uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, such offender shall be liable to be whipped, in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable under any other section of this

2.5 Seterusnya, Mahkamah ini juga mengambil kira bahawa pengakuan salah OKT-OKT telah dibuat mengikut peruntukan seksyen 173 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan adalah teratur mengikut peruntukan undang-S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg undang sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam kes Pham Van Thoung & Yang Lain lwn. PP (supra), Seah Ah Chiew v. PP [2006] 8 CLJ 585, Lee Weng Tuck & Anor v. PP [1989] 2 CLJ 120 dan Mohammad Hassan v. Public Prosecutor [1997] 1 CLJ SUPP 485, maka Mahkamah ini menerima pengakuan salah OKT-OKT, didapati salah dan disabitkan bagi kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan.

FAKTA KES Secara ringkas fakta kes OKT-OKT seperti mana ditandakan sebagai Lampiran A dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan dan diakui benar oleh OKT-OKT adalah seperti berikut;

3.1 Pengadu bernama Azwina Binti Ahmad Zamberi no. Kp: 021215-13-0738, pekerjaan: pembantu kedai.

3.2 Pada 19/04/2024 jam lebih kurang 3.00 pagi semasa pengadu bertugas dl kedai Seven Cafe (Seven Eleven), Jalan Bunga Kertas, Bukit Sentosa telah datang (2) lelaki melayu bangsa tidak pasti, salah seorang daripada mereka berada di luar kedai dan seorang lagi masuk ke dalam kedai sambil memegang spanar berpakaian baju t-shirt berlengan panjang warna kelabu, memakai topi keledar berwarna merah meminta pengadu untuk menyerahkan sejumlah wang di kaunter serta (1) kotak rokok dunhill. Kemudian mereka telah melarikan diri dengan menaiki motorsikal nombor pendaftaran dan jenis tidak pasti ke arah mana tidak pasti. Jumlah kerugian yang dialami lebih kurang sebanyak RM102.70/-. S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg

3.3 Bertindak atas maklumat dan risikan pada 21/4/2024 jam l/kurang 3.00 pagi sepasukan angggota polis dari Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah IPD Hulu Selangor telah tahan dan tangkap (3) lelaki melayu di dalam sebuah premis tidak bernombor di Lorong Melati Kg Damai 48050 Kuang Selangor. Butiran tangkapan; (B1): Mohamad Hafiz bin Muhd Ghazali. No. K/P: 920204035777 Alamat: Kampung Tengah, 18000 Kuala Krai, Kelantan, Malaysia. (B2): Mohamad Azrul Azham bin Mohd Rolzaman. No. K/P: 010707101737 Alamat: Blok F-1-41 Apartment Kenanga, Taman Bunga Raya Bukit Beruntung, 48300 Rawang Selangor, Malaysia. (B3): Mohd Hafizudin bin Mohd Shah. No. K/P: 931128-14-6099 Alamat: No 51 Jalan Kasturi 4D, Seksyen BB8 Bandar Baru Bukit Beruntung, 48300 Rawang Selangor, Malaysia.

3.4 Hasil siasatan (B2) dan (B3) mengaku telah terlibat dalam kejadian samun berkawan menggunakan senjata jenis spanar boleh laras di Kedai Serbaneka Seven Cafe (Seven Eleven), Jalan Bunga Kertas, 48000 Rawang Selangor.

3.5 Kes telah dirujuk ke YA TPR Selangor dan tuduh (B2) dan (B3) di bawah seskyen 395/397 Kanun Keseksaan kerana telah melakukan rompakañ bersenjatakan spanar boleh laras di Kedai Serbaneka Seven Cafe (Seven Eleven), Jalan Bunga Kertas, 48000 Rawang Selangor. S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg

3.6 Pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan ekshibit-ekshibit seperti yang berikut:

3.6.1 P1- Bukit Sentosa 2479/24 3.6.2 P2- Kuang 1266/24 3.6.3 P3- Kuang 1267/24 3.6.4 P4- Bukit Sentosa 2514/24 3.6.5 P5- Bukit Sentosa 2516/24 3.6.6 P6- Kkb 1079/24 3.6.7 P7- Rawang 4479/24 3.6.8 P8- Rajah Kasar 3.6.9 P9a-E 5 Gambar Tempat Kejadian 3.6.10 P10a-C 3 Gambar Cctv 3.6.11 P11a-F 6 Gambar Barang Rampasan 3.6.12 P12a-D 4 Gambar Motorsikal 3.6.13 P13- Laporan Kawad Cam 3.6.14 P14a-F 6 Gambar Acu Pakai

3.7 Kesemua ekshibit bertanda P9, P10, P11, P12 dan P14 telah ditunjukkan kepada OKT-OKT dan OKT-OKT akui benar semuanya.

4.1 OKT-OKT telah mengaku salah atas pertuduhan tersebut. OKT-OKT juga faham sifat dan akibat pengakuan salahnya. Pengakuan salah OKT-OKT secara asasnya wajar diberikan pengurangan atau diskaun atas hukuman yang bakal dikenakan kerana pengakuan salah OKT-OKT tersebut bukan sahaja menjimatkan masa pihak mahkamah malah pihak pendakwaan juga tidak perlu S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg mengemukakan saksi-saksi pendakwaan untuk membuktikan pertuduhan ke atas OKT-OKT.

4.2 Walaubagaimanapun, pengurangan hukuman atau diskaun tersebut bukanlah sesuatu yang automatik memandangkan hukuman bagi sesuatu kesalahan itu masih atas budibicara Hakim yang mendengar pertuduhannya setelah menilai keseriusan kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan serta faktor-faktor lain yang menjadi aras pertimbangannya. Augustine Paul, Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan di dalam BACHIK BIN ABDUL RAHMAN V. PENDAKWA RAYA [2004] 2 MLJ 534, [2004] 2 CLJ 572, seperti berikut: “One of the principles in sentencing is that a convicted person should be given a discount for pleading guilty. A reduction of about one third of the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed is normally given. This, however, is not a strict rule and the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse to grant any discount. The severity of the offence or the existence of a previous conviction may outweigh the mitigating effect of the guilty plea; so, may the demands of public interest for a deterrent sentence as well as the absence of a good defence or of other mitigating factors. The guilty plea does not automatically entitle the convict to a lesser punishment.”

4.3 Selanjutnya Mahkamah ini merujuk kepasa prinsip yang digariskan di dalam kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V KAMARUZAMAN BIN MAHMUD & ANOR [2007] 1 MLJ 750 di mana mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut: S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg "[68] Ordinarily a plea of guilty has been treated as a mitigating factor since it saves judicial time in conducting a lengthy trial but it also saves time and inconvenience of many, particularly the witnesses (see Melvani v Public Prosecutor [1971] 1 MLJ 137, Sau Soo Kim v Public Prosecutor [1975] 2 MLJ 134, Loh Hock Seng & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1980] 2 MLJ 13, Public Prosecutor v Leo Say & 2 Ors [1985] 2 CLJ 155, Mohamed Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v Public Prosecutor [1988] 1 MLJ 167, Public Prosecutor v Ravindran a/l N Rethinam & 5 Ors [1992] 4 CLJ 2043, Tan Lay Chen v Public Prosecutor [2001] 1 MLJ 135). The court has recognized that a plea of guilty is ordinarily a consideration to be taken into account in mitigation of punishment but it must be made clear that it is not the law that a sentencing judge must exercise a discretion to provide a non-custodial sentence in every case of plea of guilty as each case is dealt with on its own individual merits and should not be assumed mechanically that it will be spared the custodial sentence. A plea advanced on counsel's advice late in the day because a conviction is almost inevitable, will be given less weight than one advanced from arrest or committal, on the first day he is charged in court to save witnesses from the trauma of a trial or to reduce court delays, (see R Lawrence [1980] 1 NSWLR 122,) Laurentiu [1992] 63 A Crim R 402)."

4.4 Pertimbangan Mahkamah ini dalam memutuskan hukuman bukanlah hanya semata-mata untuk kepentingan OKT-OKT tetapi juga kepada faktor kepentingan awam serta keseriusan kesalahan yang dilakukan seperti mana S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg pertuduhan. Mahkamah ini memandang serius atas kesalahan seperti mana pertuduhan. OKT-OKT dalam pertuduhan ini telah melakukan kesalahan rompak berkumpulan ke atas mangsa yang merupakan seorang pembantu kedai di tempat kejadian Seven Café (Seven Eleven) pada jam lebih kurang 3.00 pagi pada tarikh kejadian seperti mana pertuduhan. Akibat rompakan berkumpulan OKT-OKT dengan menggunakan senjata jenis spanar boleh laras, mangsa telah trauma, ketakutan dan kerugian sejumlah wang tunai

4.5 Perbuatan OKT-OKT bukan sahaja mendatangkan trauma dan ketakutan kepada mangsa malah juga membawa kerugian kepada premis tempat mangsa berkerja. Kesalahan jenayah yang dilakukan OKT-OKT adalah suatu kesalahan jenayah yang serius dan berleluasa dan ianya perlu dibendung agar masyarakat dapat menjalani kehidupan dengan aman tenteram serta hormani walau di mana berada. Bentuk hukuman yang berat wajar diberikan untuk mencerminkan peranan Mahkamah ini dalam mencegah OKT-OKT dari mengulangi perbuatan seumpama ini dan lantas menjadi pengajaran juga kepada masyarakat umum untuk menjauhkan diri dari sebarang perbuatan jenayah sebegini.

5.1 Mahkamah ini seterusnya perlu mengambil kira kepentingan awam melampaui kepentingan OKT-OKT sebelum sesuatu hukuman dijatuhkan selari dengan prinsip undang-undang sebagaimana yang telah digariskan di dalam kes R V BALL (KENNETH JOHN) [1951] 35 CR APP R 164 seperti berikut: S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg “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 the 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.”

5.2 Selanjutnya, mahkamah ini juga merujuk kepada dapatan Yang Arif Hakim Augustine Paul di dalam TAN LAY CHEN V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2001] 1 MLJ 135; [2000] 4 CLJ 492, yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “The phrase 'pass sentence according to law' in the subsection means that the sentence imposed 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 (see Re Chang Cheng S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg Hoe & Ors [1966] 2 MLJ 252; Public Prosecutor v Jafa bin Daud [1981] 1 MLJ 315; Philip Lau Chee Heng v Public Prosecutor [1988] 3 MLJ 107). The assessment of a sentence in accordance with judicial principles clearly contemplates, inter alia, a consideration of the mitigating circumstances in favour of the person to be sentenced. 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). 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 bin Shariff v Public Prosecutor [1996] MLJU 159; [1996] 4 CLJ 441; Lee Say & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1985] 2 CLJ 155). The severity of the offence committed may outweigh the mitigating effect of a guilty plea (see Loh Hock Seng 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; R v Costen [1989] 11 Cr App R (S) 182). Thus, there can be no automatic rule that a guilty plea on its own entitles an accused to a lesser punishment (see Public Prosecutor v Govindnan a/l Chinden Nair [1998] 2 MLJ 181)”

5.3 Hukuman yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah ini adalah suatu hukuman yang munasabah sebagai pengajaran kepada OKT-OKT secara khusus supaya S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg tidak diulanginya lagi di masa hadapan dan juga sebagai suatu mesej kepada masyarakat secara umumnya agar tidak sewenangnya melibatkan diri dengan sebarang aktiviti jenayah. Mahkamah ini berharap dengan hukuman berbentuk pemenjaraan panjang dan sebatan ini akan dapat membantu OKT-OKT bermuhasabah serta berubah ke arah yang lebih baik lantas menjadi manusia yang lebih berguna kepada keluarga, bangsa, agama dan negara kelak.

5.4 Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Miri, Mairin Idang @ Martin di dalam kes JOHNNY TEOH & 1 LAGI V. PP [2015] 1 LNS 132 menyebut seperti berikut: “I have read the records of appeal and I also read both parties submissions and the authorities cited therein. I dismiss the application for revision. It is my finding that the learned SCJ have not erred in fact or in law in finding the appellant guilty and I also find the sentence imposed is based on law and decided cases. I therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the court below. In passing I have to say this, it is common knowledge to all of us here that gang robbery with deadly weapon in residential, commercial building even on the roads and public places are rampant and on the increase in our country and in Miri as well. We only need to listen to the TV and read local newspapers. Therefore, there is a pressing need to ensure the public are not harmed from such offences of robbery and such offender should be kept away from society and if the fact warrant for longer period. …. S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg [18] It is also well accepted fact that robbery or gang robbery is a serious offence which involved element of force, aggression and violent. The offence must be differentiated with petty offences. Robbery is no petty offences. In Lee Chow Meng v. PP [1976] 1 MLJ 287, the Court takes into notice the rampancy of armed robberies. Rampancy reflects degree of the seriousness of the offence to the public. Rampancy will directly or indirectly affect the public at large. For example, study from an organization known as Victim Assist Queensland, a victim of violent or forceful crime would probably suffer from emotional reactions to trauma which includes redness and lethargy.”

5.5 Mahkamah ini juga menggunapakai prinsip undang-undang yang sedia maklum di dalam kes HARI RAM SEGHAL V. PP [1980] CLJU 116; [1980] 1 LNS 116; [1981] 15 1 MLJ 165 berkenaan 4 objektif utama dalam menjatuhkan hukuman seperti berikut: "Our courts have a long time since progressed from the "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth" type of justice. The avowed aims of punishments are retribution, justice, deterrence, reformation and protection, but it is never intended to act as a vehicle of vengeance. This court does not sit here to hand out to victims of aggression their "pound of flesh" but generally to protect society by enforcing justice".

MITIGASI DAN HUJAHAN PIHAK PENDAKWAAN S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg

6.1 OKT1 dalam rayuannya memohon agar hukuman diringankan. OKT2 pula memohon hukuman diringankan kerana OKT2 menyatakan mempunyai tanggungan seorang anak. OKT-OKT telah mengaku salah atas pertuduhan di mahkamah ini. Pihak pendakwaan dalam hujahannya memohon agar hukuman setimpal berbentuk pengajaran diberikan ke atas OKT dengan mengambil kira keseriusan kesalahan yang dilakukan OKT-OKT.

6.2 Semasa kes ini dijalankan, OKT-OKT juga telah dipertuduhan dengan beberapa pertuduhan rompakan yang lain melibatkan mangsa, tempat kejadian, tarikh dan masa yang berbeza dan OKT-OKT telah memilih mengaku salah atas semua pertuduhan yang dihadapainya.

6.3 Mahkamah ini telah menimbangkan rayuan mitigasi yang dikemukakan OKT-OKT dan pengakuan salah OKT-OKT di peringkat awal sebagai faktor mitigasinya. Mahkamah ini mengambilkira hujahan pihak pendakwaan serta keseriusan kesalahan yang dilakukan, kesan trauma dan kerugian kepada mangsa di dalam kes ini serta kegusaran dan keharmonian masyarakat dalam kes seumpama ini. Oleh yang demikian itu, mahkamah ini perlu memberikan suatu bentuk hukuman yang diharapkan dapat mencegah kegiatan dan penglibatan OKT-OKT dalam kesalahan ini atau apa jua bentuk kesalahan lain kelak serta menjadi bentuk pengajaran kepada OKT-OKT dan masyarakat supaya menjauhkan diri dari penglibatan dengan sebarang kegiatan jenayah.

7.1 Kesalahan merompak berkumpulan menggunkan senjata adalah kesalahan yang serius dan kebiasannya boleh melibatkan lebih dari 1 perbuatan jenayah S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg terhadap mangsa. Kesalahan OKT-OKT di sini pula telah dilakukan di premis perniagaan di Seven Café (Seven Eleven) yang merupakan tempat awam dan tempat mangsa mencari rezeki. Perbuatan jenayah OKT-OKT dilakukan pada jam 3.00 pagi di mana telah mengganggu mangsa serta memberikan kesan trauma dan ketakutan kepada mangsa dan orang awam lain. Perbuatan OKT-OKT ini bukan sahaja boleh mengancam keselamatan mangsa tetapi juga kepada masyarakat di negara ini. Pesalah kegiatan jenayah ini perlu diberikan pengajaran dan kegiatan jenayah ini perlu dibendung demi kestabilan dan keharmonian kehidupan. Oleh itu, mahkamah ini berperanan untuk memberikan pengajaran yang munasabah kepada pesalah kegiatan jenayah seumpama ini.

7.2 Mahkamah ini merujuk kes FRANKIE CHAONG ANAK LAGI v. PP, [2023] 1 LNS 2750, [2023] CLJU 2750 di mana Yang Arif HMT Wong Siong Tung menyatakan seperti berikut: “[26] The offence of gang robbery under section 395 of the Penal Code is undoubtedly a serious and grave offence. It is a crime that poses significant threats to public safety and security. Gang robberies often involve multiple offenders acting together, which can lead to extreme violence and harm to victims. [27] The increasing prevalence of gang robbery cases highlights the gravity and seriousness of this offence. These incidents often result in injuries and, in some unfortunate cases, even lead to the death of S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg victims. The impact of such crimes on society is profound, as they create fear and insecurity among the public. [28] The Court must treat offences of this nature with utmost seriousness. It is essential for the courts to adopt a stern approach in dealing with gang robbery cases to deter potential offenders and protect innocent citizens from becoming victims. [29] The court's stance on gang robbery should reflect the gravity of the crime and the potential harm it can cause to individuals and communities. Sentencing decisions must take into account the need to sends a clear message that such criminal activities will not be tolerated in society to protect society, uphold the rule of law, and promote a sense of safety and security for all citizens. See: PP v. Kamarulzaman Mahmud and others [2006] 4 CLJ 792; Samsudin Bin Abdullah v. Public Prosecutor [2015] MLJU 330”

7.3 Mahkamah ini juga mengambil kira prinsip penghukuman dalam kes LETITIA BOSMAN V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR & OTHER APPEALS (No.1) [2020] 5 MLJ 277, [2020] 8 CLJ 147 yang menyatakan seperti berikut: "[124]... Generally, the law does not fix a mandatory sentence for a certain offence. A maximum sentence is prescribed for the offence and the court is left to decide the appropriate sentence within the ambit of the punishment provision. In such a case, the accused will then make a plea of mitigation, which is a submission to move the court to pass a lenient S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg sentence. It bears noting that under the scheme of Chapter XX of the CPC that governs the procedure of criminal trials in the High Court, there is no statutory requirement for mitigating factors to be considered by the court before it passes sentence according to law. Although there is no provision in the CPC for a plea in mitigation in High Court trials, nevertheless as a matter of fact, in practice it is quite common to allow a plea in mitigation before the court imposes sentence. After the accused has submitted the mitigation plea, the prosecution will submit the aggravating factors for the purpose of pressing for a heavy sentence. [125] In passing sentence, the court takes into consideration the mitigating and aggravating factors in order to ensure that the sentence is in accordance with the law. Passing a sentence according to law means the sentence imposed must not only be within the ambit of the sentence period stipulated but also assessed and passed according to established judicial principles (see Jafa bin Daud at p 316 of the judgment of Mohamed Azmi J)."

7.4 Mahkamah Agung, di dalam kes MOHAMED ABDULLAH ANG SWEE KANG V PP [1988] 1 MLJ 167, telah memutuskan yang berikut: "In assessing the length of custodial sentence, the court must look at the overall picture in perspective by considering, firstly, the gravity of the type of offence committed; secondly, the facts in the commission of the offence; thirdly, the presence or absence of mitigating factors, and, fourthly, the sentences that have been imposed in the past for similar S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg offences to determine the trend of sentencing policy, if any. The fact that a sentence of imprisonment is imposed as a deterrence does not justify the sentencer in passing a sentence of greater length than what the facts of the offence warrant. The gravity of the type of offence involved must be considered in the light of the particular facts of the offence.”

7.5 Yang Arif HMT Wong Siong Tung juga telah menyatakan di dalam FRANKIE CHAONG ANAK LAGI v. PP, [2023] 1 LNS 2750, [2023] CLJU 2750 di mana hukuman yang wajar kepada pesalah bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 395 Kanun Keseksaan seperti berikut: “[30] The sentencing trend for the offence of gang robbery under section 395 of the Penal Code appears to vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each individual case. However, it generally falls within the range of 12 to 16 years of imprisonment, accompanied by 5 to 6 strokes of whipping. See: Suhaimi bin Hashim v. Public Prosecutor [2022] 7 MLJ 311; Dhurairaj a/l Sreedhran v. Public Prosecutor [2017] MLJU 2067; Ahmad Rashidi Zainol & Anor v. PP [2014] 9 MLJ 562; Hemanathan a/l Moorthy v. Public Prosecutor [2021] MLJU 858; PP v. Lee Tak Keong [1988] CLJU 217; [1988] 1 LNS 217; and Khairan Ezuwardi Razali v. Pendakwa

7.6 Selanjutnya mahkamah ini juga merujuk kepada dapatan Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Samsuddin Hassan di dalam kes MUHAMMAD SAFRIADI v. PP [2011] CLJU 686, [2011] 1 LNS 686, menyatakan seperti berikut: S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg “[10] ….. Tidak boleh dinafikan ini adalah satu kesalahan yang serius sepertimana dicerminkan dalam niat Parlimen menetapkan hukuman yang berat terhadap kesalahan rompakan berkumpulan di bawah Seksyen 395 Kanun Keseksaan dengan penjara selama tempoh yang boleh sampai dua puluh (20) tahun dan boleh juga dikenakan sebat. Pada pandangan Mahkamah, hukuman berat ini ialah suatu manifestasi penghormatan yang tinggi bagi melindungi keselamatan orang awam. Oleh itu, sekiranya hukuman yang ringan dikenakan terhadap pesalah rompakan berkumpulan maka ia adalah merupakan satu penghianatan terhadap penghormatan tersebut. Hukuman berat yang ditetapkan itu juga menggambarkan hasrat Parlimen untuk mencegah jenayah ini dari berlaku secara berleluasa dan melindungi orang-orang awam di tempat-tempat awam terutamanya. ….. [12] Penilitian terhadap hukuman yang dijatuhkan terhadap kesalahan rompakan jelas menunjukkan bahawa hukuman berat telah diaplikasikan demi menjaga kepentingan awam. Keputusan Yang Arif Hakim V. T. Singham dalam kes PP v. Kamaruzaman Mahmud & Anor [2006] 4 CLJ 792 adalah dipetik seperti berikut: “[39] This court is of the view that if a crime, like armed robbery has been committed which is one ‘calculated to inspire great alarm’, as manifesting a very mischievous disposition, or especially rife in a particular district or throughout the country, it may be necessary to award a very severe punishment and to take away from the offender the power of committing such a crime or any crime for a long period. (See Choh Wai Sung v. Public Prosecutor [1946] 1 LNS 2; [1946] 12 MLJ 119 at p. 123). S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg [40] There is a pressing need to protect the public from serious harm such as offences of robbery and violence and one of the ways to give the necessary protection is to keep the offenders away from society and if the facts so warrant for a longer period. While the need to impose a non-custodial sentence against first offender and those who plead guilty is to be taken into consideration, so was the need to ensure that public safety, their property and belongings are also well protected. Clearly, the offence of robbery with a deadly weapon, being parang, is one calculated to inspire great alarm and is especially rife in most robbery offences. In the instant case, the admission by both the accused that the parang was carried in the course of the commission of robbery as a protection to personal safety cannot be considered on the facts as a true mitigating circumstances as only if the victims had resisted, protested, challenged or raised an alarm the parang would have been a great disaster. Society is terrified by robbers and especially those who are armed. Robbery, and particularly armed robbery, is an offence against the person, as well as an offence against property. [41] The Court of Criminal Appeal has said in many cases that the range of sentences imposed for serious armed robbery offences should be much higher that those in fact imposed by sentencing judges. Observations were passed by the court as long ago as 1984 in R v. Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740 at 743; [1984] 1A Grim. R 187, repeated in Ellis [1993] 68 A Grim. R 449 where Hunt CJ at CL observed that S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg reference to the judgments in Flack And Smith (unreported, NSW CCA, 12 December 1989) demonstrated that a higher range of sentence for armed robbery was required, and gave a clear indication that sentences should be increased for that crime. In Vu (Manh Hung) (unreported, NSW CCA, 11 November 1993), the court stated that “the time has more than come for far more deterrent sentences to be imposed for those offences of serious armed robbery.”

8.1 Mengambil kira faktor-faktor yang telah dinyatakan di atas, hukuman yang telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah ini ke atas OKT-OKT adalah selari dengan peruntukkan undang-undang serta setimpal atas kesalahan yang telah dilakukannya. Hukuman tersebut adalah suatu bentuk pengajaran agar OKT-OKT tidak sewenangnya melakukan kesalahan yang sama pada masa akan datang. Disamping itu juga, bentuk hukuman seumpama ini memberikan gambaran bahawa Mahkamah ini memandang berat dan serius atas kesalahan jenayah yang patut dijauhi oleh masyarakat secara umum dan khasnya kepada OKT-OKT sendiri.

8.2 Mahkamah ini telah menimbangkan mitigasi OKT-OKT, hujahan ringkas pihak pendakwaan dan faktor kepentingan awam yang mahsyur yang perlu diambil kira Mahkamah dalam menjatuhkan hukuman bagi sesuatu kes. Walaubagaimanapun, ini tidak bermakna Mahkamah terus mengabaikan kepentingan OKT-OKT. Kaedah yang wajar digunakan Mahkamah adalah membuat imbangan di antara kepentingan awam dan kepentingan OKT-OKT S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg dalam menentukan hukuman yang berpatutan. Rujukan selanjutnya di dalam PP v. MD RASHID HARUN [2000] 3 CLJ 832 yang menggariskan seperti berikut: “Courts are duty bound to consider all these matters before deciding upon a suitable sentence” …The sentence must be one appropriate to the gravity of the offence… Accordingly, the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence… Mitigating factors are not to be disregarded, even if the offence calls for a deterrent sentence… That is not to say though, that “the circumstances of the individual offender are more important than the protection of innocent members of the community from injury to their persons, or from risk even to their lives”. Public interest must not be relegated to the background. “The correct approach is to strike a balance, so far as possible, between the interest of the public and the interest of the accused.”

8.3 Oleh itu, atas imbangan dan pertimbangan faktor-faktor yang dinyatakan di atas, dan atas pengakuan salah OKT-OKT diperingkat awal maka keputusan Mahkamah ini yang memutuskan OKT-OKT dihukum penjara 10 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan 4 sebatan rotan adalah munasabah, setimpal, wajar dan selari dengan peruntukkan undang-undang. …………..fatimah………… (SITI FATIMAH BINTI TALIB) HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESYEN KUALA KUBU BHARU SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg Tarikh: 25 November 2024 S/N iiIxKZNbkmm3Pd207vg