Abdul Azim Bin Mohd Yasin (BJ-62-1-04/2024)

(a)….

If the accused pleads guilty to the charge, whether as originally framed or as amended, the plea shall be recorded and he may be convicted on it and the Court shall pass sentence according to law: Provided that before a plea of guilty is recorded the Court shall ascertain that the accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea and intends to admit, without qualification, the offence alleged against him.” [21] Dalam kes ini, OKT telah memahami sebab dan akibat pengakuannya dan pengakuan salah yang telah direkodkan adalah bukannya pengakuan bersyarat. Frasa “menjatuhkan hukuman menurut undang-undang” yang terkandung di dalam seksyen 173(b) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah telah disentuh di dalam kes Tan Ley Chen v. PP [2000] 4 CLJ 492 di mana Augustine Paul J (ketika itu) di m.s 496e – m.s 497d memutuskan: “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 Hoe & Ors [1966] 1 LNS 155; PP v Jafa bin Daud S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg [1981] 1 LNS 28; [1981] 1 MLJ 315; Philip Lau Chee Heng v. PP [1988] 2 CLJ 873’ [1988] 3 MLJ 107)…” Where public interest demands a deterrent sentence in the circumstances of a particular case, then the effect of a guilty must also give way (see Sim Gek Yong v. PP [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 PP v. Govindnan Chinden Nair [1998] 2 CLJ 370 (refd). Be that as it may, as I said earlier it must not be overlooked that the general rule is that an accused should be given a lesser punishment for pleading guilty.” [Emphasis added] [22]

“Sentence If the accused is convicted, the Court shall pass sentence according to law.” FAKTOR KEPENTINGAN AWAM [29] Faktor pertama yang telah diambil kira oleh Mahkamah ini dalam menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap OKT dalam kes ini adalah S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg faktor kepentingan awam. Bagi tujuan prinsip penghukuman ini Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes Tan Bok Yeng v PP (1972) 1 MLJ 214 di mana Mahkamah di dalam kes tersebut menekankan sebagaimana berikut :- “It is not merely the correction at the offender which is the prime object of punishment. The consideration of public interest have also to be borne in mind. In certain type of offences a sentence has got to be deterrent so that others who are like minded may restrained from becoming a menace to society..” [Emphasis added] [30] Mahkamah juga telah merujuk kepada kes PP v Mohd Ramly (1974) 1 MLJ 95 di mana kepentingan awam perlu ditekankan berbanding kepentingan OKT di mana Mohamed Azmi J menyatakan sebagaimana berikut :- “In my view, the learned magistrate failed to consider sufficiently the serious nature of the offence committed and the deliberate manner in which the crime had been perpetrated. Where the offence committed is not of a trivial nature and it is committed with such degree of deliberateness, a case can rarely come within the ambit of this section. In assessing sentence, a proper balance should be struck between public interest and the interest of the S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg accused. In the present case, it is apparent from the grounds of judgment that the learned magistrate was too preoccupied with the interest of the accused whilst giving no adequate consideration to public interest. The object of punishment is not only to punish the offender but also to deter others.” [Emphasis added] [31] Dalam apa jua situasi dan keadaan, Mahkamah dalam menjatuhkan hukuman perlu menimbang faktor kepentingan awam adalah perkara paling utama dan hukuman yang berat perlu dikenakan untuk melindungi masyarakat. Bagi prinsip tersebut, Mahkamah ini telah merujuk kepada kes PP v Chung Kwong Huah, [1981] 1 MLJ 316, Chan J telah memutuskan sebagaimana berikut : “The public is entitled to be protected and it is not likely to be so protected if lenient sentences are passed.” [32] Oleh itu adalah mustahil bagi melindungi masyarakat umum daripada kegiatan jenayah sekiranya hukuman berat tidak diberikan. Mahkamah ini juga telah merujuk kepada kes yang telah diputuskan oleh HMT Abdoolcader J (as he then was) di dalam kes PP v Teh Ah Cheng [1976] 2 MLJ 186 di ms 187 di mana Y.A Hakim telah memutuskan sebagaimana berikut :- S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg “In sentencing generally the public interest must necessarily be one of the prime considerations ... public interest should never be relegated to the background and must of necessity assume the foremost importance.” [33] Manakala di dalam kes PP v Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim (No.3) [1999] 2 CLJ 46, Augustine Paul J telah memutuskan di ms 466 sebagaimana berikut : “It is settled law that a court should, when sentencing an accused, take into account all considerations relevant to the case, including the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, the antecedents of the accused, the deterrent effect that punishment is to have, any factor that warrants special attention either in favour or against the accused and above all the public interest (see Lim Guan Eng v. Pendakwa Raya [1998] 3 CLJ 769)” [Emphasis added] [34] Kesalahan yang telah dilakukan oleh OKT adalah satu kesalahan yang serius di mana OKT mengetahui bahawa ada bersama OKT Sharifah Faraha Binti Syed Husin memiliki senjata api jenama CZ 75P-01 warna perak yang masih berfungsi. Ini telah dibuktikan setelah pemeriksaan “serviceability” dilakukan terhadap sepucuk senjata api S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg jenama CZ 75P-01 warna perak dijalankan oleh pihak polis. Jelas laporan P7 telah mengesahkan senjata api tersebut adalah masih boleh berfungsi dengan baik. [35] Dalam kes ini Mahkamah juga mendapati senjata api yang dijumpai telah menepati kehendak tafsiran Seksyen 2 Akta Senjata 1960 di mana ianya mampu melepaskan tembakan, atau peluru lain melalui cas letupan yang bermaksud bahawa senjata api itu berada dalam keadaan boleh digunakan (sila rujuk kes Lee Weng Sang v PP [1976] 1 MLJ 82). Pemakaian Seksyen 2 Akta Senjata 1960 menyatakan sebagaimana berikut :- "arm" means any lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged, or which can be adapted for the discharge of any such shot, bullet or other missile, and any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted or which can be adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing, and includes an air gun, air pistol, automatic gun, pistol and any component parts of any such weapon, and any accessory to those weapons designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon;” [36] Senjata api jenis semi-auto berkaliber 9mm dan dari buatan Chech Republic (rujuk Laporan Pemeriksaan / Serviceability P7) yang dikatakan OKT mempunyai pengetahuan ada bersama dengan S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg OKT Sharifah Faraha Binti Syed Husin yang dimiliki secara tidak sah mampu memberikan kegentaran kepada masyarakat umum. Ini kerana senjata api tersebut masih boleh digunakan oleh mana-mana pihak. Senjata api ini tidak direka untuk tujuan perhiasan atau pameran. Sudah tentu penggunaannya mungkin mampu mencederakan, mencacatkan, dan menimbulkan ketakutan di hati orang yang tidak bersalah. Walaupun dalam keadaan yang tidak disengajakan atau secara sengaja digunakan ianya bertukar menjadi dan berakhir sebagai tangan penyerang atau pembunuh. [37] Mahkamah merujuk sekali lagi kepada kes PP v Teh Ah Cheng [1976] 2 MLJ 186 di ms 187 di mana Abdoolcader J (as he then was) telah memutuskan sebagaimana berikut :- “Deterrence in this case would be that of the respondent and likely offenders similarly inclined, but there is an ancillary but no less important aspect to deterrence in cases involving unlawful possession of firearms in preventing the possible progression from mere possession to sinister user. Serviceable firearms and ammunition are neither designed nor intended for decorative or ornamental purposes to be placed on the mantelpiece for display and admiration, and it is certainly not inconceivable that the hand that wields firearms may well be capable of injuring, maiming, and striking terror in the hearts of the innocent and perhaps at some stage even in fortuitous circumstances if not by design turning into and S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg ending up as the hand of the assailant or even the assassin. So deterrence relates not only to the offence of unlawful possession but also serves the double purpose in such cases of at least reducing the possibilities of the possessor transforming into an active user of such offensive weapons.” [Emphasis added] [38] Secara umumnya Malaysia, pemilikan dan penggunaan senjata api dikawal ketat oleh undang-undang dengan tujuan untuk menjaga keselamatan awam dan mencegah penggunaan senjata api untuk tujuan jenayah. Undang-undang berkaitan dengan senjata api terutama diperuntukkan di bawah Akta Senjata Api 1960, Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971 dan Peraturan-peraturan Senjata Api 1972. Keperluan bagi memiliki lesen dan pemilikan senjata api ini dikawal ketat oleh pihak Kementerian Dalam Negeri. [39] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa dengan mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa pemilikan senjata api secara tidak sah tersebut yang ada bersama OKT Sharifah Faraha Binti Syed Husin, OKT secara tidak langsung menyumbang kepada kesalahan jenayah di mana ianya mengundang keresahan kepada masyarakat. Ini kerana senjata api yang dimiliki secara salah dan tidak dilesenkan lebih mudah digunakan bagi tujuan tidak sah dan jenayah yang mana senjata api direka untuk membunuh atau mencederakan. S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg [40] Tambahan, senjata api jenama CZ 75 P-01 Cal.9 Luger ini telah dijumpai di dalam beg warna hitam di dalam kereta Honda Jazz no pendaftaran W5558L (sila rujuk gambar P5 (9-10)) dan bukannya di dalam rumah iaitu ianya di bawa bergerak dan ianya di dalam pengetahuan OKT. Ini amat membimbangkan di mana senjata api tersebut yang masih berfungsi telah di bawa ke tempat awam. [41] Jika diteliti peruntukan hukuman bagi Seksyen 9 Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971 dan hukuman bagi Seksyen 8 Akta yang sama telah menunjukkan bahawa pengetahuan bahawa seseorang yang ada bersama OKT bergaul dan didapati bersama orang lain memiliki secara haram senjata api adalah sama dengan kesalahan memiliki senjata api itu sendiri. [42] Mesej yang tegas mesti dihantar kepada masyarakat bahawa pengetahuan bahawa ada bersama seseorang yang miliki senjata api secara haram adalah kesalahan yang sangat serius, jika tidak, individu yang bersekongkol dengan individu memiliki senjata api secara haram terlepas dengan hukuman ringan. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes R v Davies (1978)67 Cr App R 207 di mana Mahkamah telah memutuskan :- “At one time it was fashionable to suggest that retribution ought not to enter into sentencing policy. That option I think, S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg is not held as strongly now as it was a few years ago. The reason is manifest: the courts have to make it clear that crime does not pay and the only way they can do so is by the length of the sentences. Sentences show the court’s disapproval. On behalf of the community, of particular types of criminal conduct.” [43] Tambahan trend kesalahan jenayah terkini melibatkan senjata api kian bertambah dan ini merunsingkan masyarakat dan orang awam yang tidak bersalah. Mahkamah ini adalah tidak terhalang dari mengambil “judicial notice” dan ianya adalah pengetahuan umum bahawa kejadian jenayah melibatkan senjata api ini semakin bertambah jika dilihat di muka-muka akhbar dan media yang melaporkan kejadian tembak menembak, rompakan bersenjata dan pemilikan senjata api secara tidak sah. Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes Lee Chow Meng v. PP [1975] 1 MLRH 583, Abdul Hamid J telah memutuskan bahawa HMS telah tidak tersalah arah apabila mengambil “judicial notice” bahawa kes rompakan bersenjata semakin meningkat sebagaimana berikut :- “[3] The appeal is against sentence. The main grounds upon which the appellant is seeking that the sentences passed by the learned president be reversed are that the learned president erred in law -

when she allowed herself to be influenced by the alleged increase of late of armed robberies in the city when no such evidence was ever led by witness or witnesses for the prosecution S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg on record; (2) when she took judicial notice of the fact that - "Hardly a day has passed without such incidents being reported in the newspapers when there was no evidence on record to support such a finding; and (3) in failing to order that the sentences imposed in the second charge of Arrest Case No 17/1975 to run concurrently. [4] In my judgment there is absolutely no merit in this appeal. It is evident from the learned president's grounds of judgment that she took into account two main factors in considering the appropriate sentences to be imposed. In the first place, the learned president took the view that it was in the public interest that deterrent sentences be imposed. In the court below the prosecuting officer submitted that there were 677 robberies within a period of four months in Kuala Lumpur alone and half of them were armed robberies. The learned president evidently took this fact into account. It is true that the learned president was somewhat influenced by this fact. To my mind it is a matter of common knowledge and a notorious fact that there have been of late an increase in armed robberies. The learned president, I think, acted correctly when she took this fact into account and there is therefore absolutely no valid ground to say that she had erred in law. S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg [5] What matters constitute common and general knowledge may be gathered from Sarkar on Evidence, 12th Ed, where the learned author, speaking of common knowledge, at p 575, said: "The matter of which a court will take judicial notice must be a subject of common and general knowledge. In other words, judicial knowledge of facts is measured by general knowledge of the same facts. A fact is said to be generally recognised or known when its existence or operation is accepted by the public without qualification or contention. The test is whether sufficient notoriety attaches to the fact involved as to make it proper to assume its existence without proof." [6] In the light of the passage cited it is clear that the court may properly ask itself this question: is it not a fact well recognised that in Kuala Lumpur there has been of late, an increase in the commission of offences involving firearms? We are not concerned with absolute acceptance of the existence of certain knowledge. The rule of evidence speaks of general recognition and not total recognition in the sense that there is a general acceptance without qualification or contention as opposed to total acceptance. [7] Sarkar on the same page has something to say concerning the notorious facts: S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg "Judicial notice is taken of various facts which are familiar to any judicial tribunal by their universal notoriety or regular recurrence in the ordinary course of nature or business. As judges must bring to the consideration of questions they have to decide their knowledge of the common affairs of life, it is not necessary on the trial of an action to give formal evidence of matters with which men of ordinary intelligence are acquainted" [8] Matters which the court may take judicial notice are far from exhaustive. Courts have even taken judicial notice that street in London are crowded and dangerous - (Dennis v. White [1916] 2 KB 1 at p 6); and of world - wide economic depression (Ram Tarak v. Selgram [1944] AC 153). [9] In this connection let me also refer to the case cited by Encik TS Sambanthamurthi (Yong Pak Yong v. Public Prosecutor [1959] 1 MLRH 536; [1959] 1 MLJ 176) where Good J (as he then was) said at p 177: "In dealing with a matter of sentence as distinct from considering whether a person ought to be convicted or not of the offence. I think that the courts are entitled to take judicial notice of what is notorious, of what everybody knows. Indeed, I came across recently in an entirely different connection a case in which the S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg Privy Council took judicial notice of the existence of a particular class of contracts in India." [10] Further on His Lordship said: "Similarly we members of the judiciary sitting in these courts cannot avoid acquiring a very considerable knowledge, from the cases that come before us, of the activities and the prevalence of secret societies and, in particular, in this town of Ipoh." [11] Similarly I would say that it is common knowledge that, of late, commission of offences involving fire - arms has been prevalent in Kuala Lumpur and I think the court is entitled to take judicial notice of that fact.” [Emphasis added] [44] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah menegaskan bahawa hukuman berat perlu dikenakan agar masyarakat dapat dilindungi dari kegiatan jenayah seperti ini dan supaya orang awam dapat bebas bergerak tanpa rasa gentar dan selamat. Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa rasa selamat dan keamanan perlu dikembalikan kepada masyarakat. Oleh itu, hukuman pencegahan yang berat mesti dikenakan S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg FAKTOR KESERIUSAN KESALAHAN [45] Faktor utama lain yang telah diambil kira oleh Mahkamah ini adalah bahawa kesalahan yang dilakukan OKT adalah satu kesalahan serius kerana ianya memperuntukkan satu hukuman pemenjaraan boleh sampai 14 tahun sepertimana yang dinyatakan di dalam seksyen 52B Kanun Kesiksaan.

“Serious offence” The words “serious offence” denote an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more.” [46] Selain jenayah yang dilakukan OKT ini melibatkan senjata api secara haram hukuman berat dan keras adalah wajar bagi memberi impak kepada OKT dan masyarakat luar agar tidak sewenang-wenangnya bertindak melibatkan diri dengan kegiatan jenayah di luar batasan undang-undang sehingga menjadi ancaman keselamatan dan ketenteraman orang awam yang lain yang sudah semestinya mahukan kehidupan yang selamat, aman dan tenteram daripada sebarang perbuatan jenayah oleh mereka yang tidak bertanggungjawab. Oleh itu, instrument undang-undang sewajarnya menjadi pelindung kepada kehendak, kepentingan dan hak masyarakat awam bagi melindungi kehidupan awam daripada kegiatan jenayah yang merbahaya. [47] Jika hukuman terlalu ringan diberikan, dikhuatiri ianya tidak akan memberikan kesan atau impak pengajaran kepada pesalah S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg malah ianya akan menjadi sindiran dan kritikan sahaja tidak setimpal dengan kesalahan sekaligus gagal mencapai hasrat dan matlamat Parlimen untuk mencegah dan membendung aktiviti jenayah bersenjata api yang semakin meningkat dan membimbangkan. [48] Mahkamah juga menyatakan bahawa adalah menjadi hasrat Parlimen dalam menggubal Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971 adalah untuk membendung penyalahgunaan senjata api di kalangan masyarakat. Ini adalah berdasarkan kes rujukan Mahkamah Rayuan iaitu kes Wan Muhammad Azrami bin Wan Zullkifli v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2024] 3 MLJ 714, Mahkamah rayuan di dalam membenarkan rayuan hukuman dan mengekalkan sabitan bagi pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 3 Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971 telah menyentuh mengenai kehendak Parlimen dalam menggubal Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971 tersebut dan telah memutuskan :- “[45] With regard to the appeals against sentence, it is trite law that when the punishment to any offence is amended to a heavier punishment, it is the intention of the Parliament to perceive such offence as serious. Therefore, in arriving to our decision for appeal against sentence in these appeals, we are guided by the decision Abdul Malik Ishak JCA in the case of Yong Kar Mun v Public Prosecutor [2012] 6 MLJ 209 as follows: S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg [82] We will now refer to the Hansard in order to understand the true purpose and intention of the Act. At the third Parliamentary sitting of the ‘Dewan Ra’ayat’ (House of Representatives) on 27 July 1971, the Honourable Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Kadir bin Yusof (‘AG’) said at p 3850 of the Hansard: What we are bringing here is an amendment for an enhanced, a higher, penalty for committing robbery and kidnapping and other offences as stated there, four types, if they used firearms; if they used penukul, paku, or parang or any other weapon it is just like ordinary crime. But what we are going to kill is the use of firearms, bomb and grenade, when committing crimes because this is on the increase now.” [49] Mahkamah ini juga telah membuat rujukan terhadap trend hukuman kes-kes otoriti hukuman wajar dan setimpal terhadap OKT berdasarkan kes PP v. Chung Kwong Huah [1981] 1 MLRH 667; [1981] 1 MLJ 316, sebagai rujukan dan panduan hukuman. Di dalam kes tersebut, OKT telah mengaku salah terhadap dua (2) pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 9 Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971 dan Seksyen 3 Akta Senjata Api 1960. HMT Chan J di dalam kes ini telah menjatuhkan hukuman penjara selama 10 tahun dan 6 sebatan bagi kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 9 Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971 dan 3 tahun penjara bagi kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 3 Akta Senjata Api 1960 yang mana ianya berjalan serentak. S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg [50] Berdasarkan kes-kes di atas, adalah menjadi tanggungjawab Mahkamah ini dalam menjatuhkan hukuman perlulah memberi signifikasi mengenai keseriusan sesuatu kesalahan tersebut kepada masyarakat awam. Oleh yang demikian, hukuman pemenjaraan selama 10 tahun dari tarikh OKT ditangkap dan 6 sebatan adalah wajar dan munasabah. PESALAH PERTAMA [51] Selain faktor-faktor penghukuman di atas, faktor lain yang telah diambil kira oleh Mahkamah ini dalam menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap OKT adalah faktor bahawa OKT adalah pesalah pertama. Tiada rekod lampau bagi kesalahan yang sama telah dikemukakan oleh Timbalan Pendakwaraya. Oleh itu, ini melayakkan OKT untuk tidak dijatuhkan dengan hukuman pemenjaraan mandatori dan diskaun patut diberikan. [52] Namun, Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes PP v Teh Ah Cheng [1976] 2 MLJ 186 yang mana walaupun tertuduh adalah pesalah muda, pesalah pertama dan mengaku salah, kepentingan awam masih menjadi keutamaan. Oleh yang demikian, hukuman penjara selama 10 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan 6 sebatan adalah wajar dan munasabah. PENGAKUAN SALAH [53] Mahkamah ini juga bertanggungjawab bagi mengimbangi di antara keperluan memberi kepentingan awam dan S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg kepentingan OKT pada masa yang sama dalam menjatuhkan hukuman yang setimpal. Pengakuan salah OKT pada sebutan kali ke-9 dan setelah tarikh perbicaraan telah ditetapkan, dan setelah pertuduhan dibacakan semula telah menjimatkan masa Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes Tan Ley Chen v. PP [2000] 4 CLJ 492, sebagaimana berikut: “In the imposing a right 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. PP [1975] 1 LNS 158; [1975] 2 MLJ 134; PP v. Sulaiman Ahmad [1992] 3 CLJ 447 (Rep); [1993] 1 MLJ 74; PP v. Ravindran & Ors [1992] 1 LNS 47; ;[1993] 1 MLJ 45).” [54] Kesulitan bagi pihak Pendakwaraya bagi memanggil saksi-saksi serta menjalankan perbicaraan dalam usaha OKT mencari peluang melepaskan diri sekiranya pihak Pendakwaraya gagal membuktikan kes, dapat dielakkan dengan pengakuan salah OKT. Walaupun diskaun telah diberikan, Mahkamah ini menegaskan bahawa kepentingan awam mengatasi kesemua faktor lain dalam menjatuhkan hukuman. S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg LATAR BELAKANG RESPONDEN, UMUR & KESIHATAN [55] Mahkamah juga telah menimbangkan umur OKT adalah 43 tahun semasa pertuduhan di bacakan. OKT juga menurut mitigasi peguam menanggung isterinya dan dua (2) orang anak tirinya. Selain itu, OKT juga masih mempunyai ibu bapa yang tua dan menurut peguambela bekerja kampung di Johor Bahru. OKT kerja berniaga sendiri dan mempunyai pendapatan dan semasa di tahan di Bazar Ramadhan Kuala Selangor OKT masih dalam tempoh berbulan madu. OKT masih mempunyai kesihatan yang baik bagi menjalani hukuman penjara. [56] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Tang Ka Wak v PP [2017] MLJU 2036, di mana Anselm Charles JC memutuskan seperti berikut :- “[30] ….It is this court’s view that a jail sentence to a person of the of the appellant’s age and condition is much more severe than it would be to a younger person and to a person in better health. Further, taking into consideration the appellant’s age and health the objectives of punishment such as reform and rehabilitation as well as deterrence from committing an offence of similar nature by the appellant are not factors that would feature highly as would a younger person. [31] … [32] In the same vein, in the English case of R v Clarke , R v Cooper – [2017] All ER (D) 67 (Apr), the Court of Appeal stated : S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg “Whilst we consider that an offender’s diminished life expectancy, his age, health and the prospect of dying in prison are factors legitimately to be taken into account in passing sentence, they have to be balanced against the gravity of the offending, (including the harm done to victims), and the public interest in setting appropriate punishment for very serious crimes.” [Emphasis added] KESIMPULAN [57] Faktor kepentingan awam telah menjadi pertimbangan yang utama dalam menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap OKT bagi kes ini. Walaupun Mahkamah telah mempertimbangkan faktor lain termasuk kepentingan OKT namun kepentingan awam dan keseriusan kesalahan ini telah mendahului faktor lain. [58] Atas alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah yang Mulia ini telah menjatuhkan hukuman penjara selama 10 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan 6 sebatan terhadap OKT. Disediakan oleh: (NURUL MARDHIAH BINTI MOHAMMED REDZA) Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen & Majistret Kuala Selangor Selangor S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg

11.11.2025 Bagi Pihak Pendakwaraya : Tuan Muhammad Azamuddin bin Razak, Timbalan Pendakwaraya, Selangor. Bagi Pihak OKT : T/n Hidayah Asri, Johor Bahru. S/N zVvpoyMJdkqCCMfIzcSWg