Cha Yong Qiang (WA-62-64-05/2026)

The accused was first brought before this Court on 28 May 2026 to answer a charge of carrying a machete in a public place, an offence contrary to section 6(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958. The accused was unrepresented.

Upon the charge being read and explained to him, the accused pleaded guilty. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 12 June 2026 for the tendering of statement of facts and for sentence. S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2

On 12 June 2026, the accused appeared before this Court once again. The Prosecution drew the Court's attention to the fact that the accused had pleaded guilty to the offence on the preceding date. The Prosecution then sought leave to amend the charge orally by inserting the words “50 cm” and deleting the words “maksud yang sah atau”. I allowed the application for the oral amendments. The Prosecution thereafter requested that the amended charge be read and explained to the accused.

The Court Interpreter (the interpreter), who is attached to this Court as an accredited Chinese-language interpreter, asked the accused whether he preferred the amended charge to be read to him in Malay or Chinese. The accused replied that he preferred the amended charge to be read to him in Chinese.

The interpreter thereafter read the amended charge to the accused in Mandarin. The accused pleaded guilty to the amended charge. The interpreter then read to the accused the punishment prescribed for the offence in Mandarin. The interpreter subsequently informed the Court that the accused understood the amended charge and had pleaded guilty to the charge. All communication between the accused and the interpreter was conducted in Mandarin.

As I do not understand Mandarin, I necessarily relied upon the interpretation and explanation provided by the interpreter. I accepted the interpreter’s account as accurate and proceeded on the basis that the accused had understood the amended charge and the punishment prescribed for the offence before entering his plea of guilty. S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3

The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor then asked the interpreter whether she had explained to the accused the punishment prescribed for the offence. The interpreter replied that the prescribed punishment had been read and duly explained to the accused, following which the accused pleaded guilty.

In the circumstances, this Court recorded that the accused understood both the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea.

The prosecution thereafter proceeded to tender the statement of facts. The statement was read and explained to the accused in Mandarin through the interpretation of the interpreter. Upon being invited to respond, the accused admitted the facts in their entirety and without reservation.

The prosecution then tendered the exhibits in support of the charge. The exhibits were duly marked were shown and explained to the accused with the assistance from the interpreter. The accused acknowledged each exhibit and admitted its authenticity and correctness. There was neither hesitation nor equivocation on his part.

This Court accordingly recorded the exhibits and marked them in the ordinary course. Being satisfied that the plea of guilty was unequivocal, and that the accused had freely admitted not only the charge but also the entirety of the facts and exhibits upon which the prosecution relied, I recorded a conviction against the accused.

The accused was thereafter afforded every opportunity to address the Court in mitigation before sentence was pronounced. The accused S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 advanced his plea in mitigation in Mandarin with the assistance of the interpreter. The accused’s mitigation was received and considered by this Court with the care that every plea for mercy deserves.

In arriving at that sentence, I accorded full weight to the accused's plea of guilty, entered at the earliest available opportunity, which spared the Court the necessity of a protracted trial. The accused’s plea was not without significance. It reflected an acceptance of responsibility for his offending conduct and an acknowledgment of the wrongfulness of his actions, accompanied by an expression of remorse.

Having anxiously weighed the mitigating circumstances advanced on behalf of the accused against the aggravating features of the offence, as ably highlighted by the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor, I was driven to the conclusion that the appropriate sentence was one of 5 years' imprisonment beginning from the date of his arrest together with 1 stroke of the whip.

It was at this juncture that an unexpected turn of events unfolded.

Immediately after sentence had been pronounced, the accused informed this Court that he did not intend to plead guilty to the charge. This assertion stood in stark contrast to the course of the proceedings that had hitherto unfolded before the Court. I therefore sought clarification from the accused, reminding him that throughout the proceedings he had unequivocally pleaded guilty to the charge, admitted the statement of facts, acknowledged the exhibits tendered by the prosecution, and advanced his plea in mitigation. S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5

The accused then explained that, whilst he admitted to having possessed the machete in a public place, he did not agree with the punishment of whipping prescribed for the offence. In view of this explanation, the interpreter once again explained to the accused, in Mandarin, the punishment prescribed by law for the offence. Upon hearing that explanation afresh, the accused stated that he wished to withdraw his plea of guilty.

By that stage, sentence had already been lawfully pronounced. The judicial process had run its course. Having recorded the conviction and imposed sentence, this Court had become functus officio. This Court’s jurisdiction over the merits of the case had been exhausted. It was no longer open to permit the withdrawal of the plea or to revisit the conviction and sentence.

The accused subsequently lodged a Notice of Appeal on 23 June 2026 against both his conviction and sentence. It is in those circumstances that I now set out the grounds for my decision.

The charge preferred against the accused persons is reproduced below in its original version which reads as follows: Bahawa kamu pada 27/05/2026 jam lebih kurang 04.45 petang di Stesen MRT Bukit Bintang, Jalan Bukit Bintang di dalam daerah Dang Wangi, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, telah didapati memiliki sebilah parang di tempat awam tanpa maksud yang sah atau mempunyai kebenaran yang sah dari pihak berkuasa. oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 kesalahan di bawah seksyen 6 (1) Akta Bahan-Bahan Kakisan, Letupan Dan Senjata Berbahaya 1958 (Akta 357). Sekiranya disabitkan kesalahan boleh dikenakan hukuman penjara tidak kurang 5 tahun dan tidak melebihi 10 tahun dan sebat.

The factual background, as disclosed by the statement of facts admitted by the accused, may be stated as follows.

On 27 May 2026, at approximately 4.45 p.m., the complainant was on duty at the Bukit Bintang MRT Station, Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur. He received information that an individual was present at the concourse level of the station carrying a machete.

The complainant forthwith proceeded to the location indicated. Upon his arrival, he observed the accused was seated and in possession of a machete. The accused was apprehended without incident and the machete was immediately seized.

Subsequent police investigation established that the accused was in possession of a machete measuring approximately 50 cm in length whilst in a public place. The accused had neither lawful authority nor lawful purpose for such possession. It was upon those admitted facts that the charge under section 6(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 was preferred against the accused, to which he entered a plea of guilty. S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7

These facts, simple though they may appear, constitute the factual substratum upon which the present proceedings rest.

The accused thereafter advanced his plea in mitigation in Mandarin with the assistance of the interpreter. He submitted that this was his first offence. He bore family responsibilities, particularly towards his 18-year-old son, whose welfare remained a matter of concern to him.

The accused further informed the Court that, before his apprehension, he had been employed by Shopee. He also stated that he was not afflicted by any illness or medical condition.

The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor urged upon this Court that the punishment imposed ought to bear a proper and proportionate relationship to the offence committed by the accused. It was submitted that a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence would not only impress upon the accused the seriousness of the offence but would also serve as a salutary reminder that offences of this nature cannot be regarded with undue indulgence.

The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor further submitted that the sentence must vindicate the wider interests of justice, including the need for deterrence and the maintenance of public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8

The notes of proceedings were prepared based upon the Court Recording Transcription (CRT) only after the accused had lodged his Notice of Appeal. Consequently, at the time when the proceedings were conducted, I did not have the benefit of reviewing the CRT and was constrained to proceed on the basis of the contemporaneous interpretation furnished in open court.

Having since examined the notes of proceedings with the care which the circumstances of the case plainly demanded, I am satisfied that it discloses a material divergence between what was uttered by the accused in Mandarin and what was conveyed contemporaneously through the interpreter at the open court during the whole proceedings.

The transcript reveals that, immediately after the prescribed punishment for the offence had been read and explained to the accused in Mandarin, the accused expressly stated that he did not wish to plead guilty. Notwithstanding that response, the interpreter informed the Court that the accused understood the charge and had pleaded guilty.

Having no reason at that material time to doubt its accuracy, this Court accepted the plea as unequivocal. The prosecution thereafter proceeded to tender the statement of facts, and the proceedings continued upon the footing that the accused had entered a valid plea of guilty. S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9

It is now apparent, from the contemporaneous CRT that the accused's response in Mandarin was not truly reflected in the interpretation communicated to this Court during the proceedings.

I am not in a position to ascertain why the accused’s response in Mandarin was not conveyed to this Court at that particular juncture. Whether the interpreter did not hear the accused’s response, or whether it escaped her attention amidst the course of the proceedings, is a matter upon which it would be neither proper nor prudent for me to speculate.

However, had the interpreter heard and appreciated the accused’s unequivocal indication that he no longer wished to plead guilty upon learning of the prescribed punishment, I have every confidence that the interpreter would faithfully conveyed that response to the Court. There would then have been no occasion for the plea of guilty to be recorded, and the proceedings would necessarily have taken an altogether different course.

This unfortunate occurrence in the proceedings raises a question of considerable importance as to whether the plea recorded by this Court can safely be regarded as an unequivocal plea of guilty.

It is desirable to advert to the legal provisions governing the taking of an accused person’s plea. Those provisions are to be found in section 173(a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the material parts of which are set out hereunder: Section 173: Procedure in summary trials The following procedure shall be observed by Magistrates in summary trials: S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10

When the accused appears or is brought before the Court a charge containing the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be framed and read and explained to him, and he shall be asked whether he is guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.

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.

If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead or claims to be tried, the Court shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. [39] A careful reading of section 173 of the CPC reveals that three essential elements must coexist before a plea of guilty can properly be regarded as unequivocal. They are:

The charge must be read and explained to the accused;

The accused must understand the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea; and

The accused must evince a clear and unqualified intention to admit the offence charged. [40] It is not without significance that the safeguards governing the acceptance of a plea of guilty have long been settled. In Lee Weng Tuck & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1989] 2 MLJ 143, the Supreme Court, speaking through Mohamed Azmi SCJ, authoritatively laid down the principles by which the validity of such a plea is to be tested. Those S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA safeguards, which admit of no departure if the plea is to be accepted as unequivocal, were stated in the following terms:

The court must ensure that it is the accused himself who wishes to plead guilty. Thus in R v Tan Thian Chai & Anor [1932] MLJ 74, Whitley J held that an accused person should plead guilty or claim to be tried by his own mouth and not through his counsel.

(ii) The court must ascertain that the accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea.

(iii) The court must ascertain that the accused intends to admit without qualification the offence alleged against him. [41] Applying the foregoing principles to the present case and having scrutinised the contemporaneous notes of proceedings as recorded in the CRT system, I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that the accused withdrew his plea at the very moment he was informed that the prescribed punishment included a sentence of whipping. [42] Perceiving the reaction objectively, demonstrates that the accused was no longer prepared to persist in an unqualified admission of guilt once he became aware of the punishment attendant upon his plea. [43] In those circumstances, the third requirement under section 173 of the CPC ceased to be satisfied. To my mind, from that moment onwards, the plea could no longer be characterised as unequivocal. [44] The factual circumstances of the present case bear a striking resemblance to those considered by the Court of Appeal in Kaliya Perumal a/l Ponnusamy v Pendakwa Raya [2023] MLJU 2957. In that case, the accused initially entered a plea of guilty but withdrew it S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA immediately upon being informed by the court interpreter that the offence carried a mandatory term of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal held that the plea was not unequivocal but conditional in nature. Their Lordships concluded that the learned Magistrate ought to have permitted the accused to retract his plea before recording a conviction and imposing sentence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates' Court for a retrial. [45] The parallel with the present case is, in my respectful view, unmistakable. There is, however, one material distinction in the sequence of events. In Kaliya Perumal, the learned Magistrate became aware of the accused’s change of position before the proceedings had reached their conclusion. In the present case, regrettably, I remained unaware that the accused had intimated to the court interpreter his intention to withdraw his plea upon learning that the prescribed punishment included a sentence of whipping. By the time that fact came to my knowledge, sentence had already been pronounced and the proceedings had thereby run their course, rendering me functus officio. The position of law on this point is trite as stipulated by the Court of Appeal in Teh Geok Chin v Public Prosecutor [2025] MLJU 4833, wherein Mohamed Zaini Mazlan JCA ruled that: [24] …The court is not empowered to set aside a plea of guilty after a sentence has been imposed, as it would then be functus officio and no longer seized of jurisdiction. Such power must be exercised judiciously and based on valid and proper reasons. [46] It was only after the accused had lodged his notice of appeal, and the contemporaneous notes of proceedings generated by CRT system S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA were subsequently produced, that it became apparent that the accused had conveyed his intention to withdraw his plea at an earlier stage of the proceedings. [47] That material circumstance was not disclosed to the Court before conviction was recorded and sentence imposed. Had it been brought to my attention at the material time, the course of the proceedings would necessarily have required careful reconsideration in the light of the principles articulated by the Court of Appeal in Kaliya Perumal. [48] Notwithstanding the foregoing, one feature of the evidence admits of no controversy. The accused, upon the statement of facts being read and interpreted to him, accepted each and every material particular thereof without hesitation, reservation or qualification. At no stage did he dispute the factual foundation of the charge. [49] The turning point came only when he was informed that the punishment prescribed by law included a sentence of whipping. It was that circumstance alone, which induced him to withdraw from the position he had previously adopted. His change of stance was therefore not born of any denial of culpability, but the punishment entailed. CONCLUSION [50] Having weighed all matters placed before this Court, including the circumstances surrounding the offence, the plea of mitigation advanced by the accused, and the submissions of the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor, I was satisfied that the appropriate sentence was the minimum punishment prescribed by law. Accordingly, the accused was S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment from the date of his arrest and 1 stroke of whipping. [51] However, this Court does not lose sight of the fact that, in criminal proceedings, the preservation of the integrity of the conviction must remain paramount. Should the plea upon which the conviction was founded was not an unequivocal plea of guilty, the consequences that flow from such a finding must necessarily follow. The matter would then stand to be dealt with in accordance with law, including such further directions as the Honourable High Court may consider appropriate. 29 July 2026 ………………………………… Dr. Azrol bin Abdullah Judge Sessions Criminal Court Kuala Lumpur S/N RwzSA1I/0e1rC4ohkzoaA