DPP Puan Hajarul Falenna v 1. NIK HANIFF BIN NIK HASAIN (45SOM-5-03/2018)

1.

MR. MAHAMAROKEH …… RESPONDENTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (ON SENTENCE ONLY) A. BACKGROUND [1] The 2 Accused Persons were charged before this court for harbouring/concealing migrants who were smuggled into the country, an offence under section 26H of the Anti-Trafficking of Persons and Anti Smuggling of Migrant Act 2007 (ATIPSOM) – (“The Act”). 2 [2] After the charge was read and explained to both the Accused Persons, and after having understood the charge, both the Accused Persons pleaded guilty. After they were explained of the consequences of their plea and understood them, both the Accused Persons maintained their plea of guilty. [3] After the facts of the case were read and explained to both the Accused Persons and after having understood them, both of them admitted to those facts, the court thereafter convicted them. [4] Upon hearing submissions from both parties, this court sentenced both of the Accused Persons to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment effective from the date of their completing serving their previous sentences i.e. 13/3/2019 and 16/7/2019 respectively. [5] Dissatisfied, the Public Prosecutor/Appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on their sentences. These are the grounds for the decision. B. THE CHARGE [6] The charge reads as follows: “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 06/02/2018 jam lebih kurang 11.00 malam bertempat di sebuah rumah no 49H Kedai Lama, Rantau Panjang, di dalam Daerah Pasir Mas, di dalam Negeri Kelantan telah didapati menyembunyikan dan melindungi (17) orang lelaki dan (5) orang perempuan warganegara asing iaitu: 3 1) Suraiming Nicha, lelaki W/Negara Thailand umur 34 tahun 2) Thet Naing, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 40 tahun 3) Tahan Oo, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 30 tahun 4) Ayng Zaw, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 37 tahun 5) Kuaw San, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 40 tali un 6) Soe Neing, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 40 tahun 7) Thien, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 25 tahun 8) Sulam Mung, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 20 tahun 9) Ngin Suan Lian, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 16 tahun 10) Nayla, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 20 tahun 11) Tun Tha Woo, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 40 tahun 12) Aung Nay Min, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 20 tahun 13) Way Linn, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 23 tahun 14) Tin Win, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 35 tahun 15) Mg Zaw Win, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 40 tahun 16) Myokoko, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 30 tahun 17) Thein Hwt Aung, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 25 tahun 18) Hla Oo, Perempuan W/Negara Myanmar umur 27 tahun 19) Mya Hwe, Perempuan W/Negara Myanmar umur 23 tahun 11 20) Thein Thein, Perempuan W/Negara Myanmar umur 25 tahun 21) San Mu, Perempuan W/Negara Myanmar umur 40 tahun 22) Nu Nu Aye, Perempuan W/Negara Myanmar umur 20 tahun 4 Dengan cara mengunci rumah dari luar dengan mangga bagi mengelakkan daripada ditangkap dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 26H Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Orang dan Anti Penyeludupan Migran 2007 yang mana ianya merupakan kesalahan keselamatan di bawah Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012 dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 kanun keseksaan. C. THE FACTS OF THE CASE [7] The facts of the case can be gleaned from the exhibit P….. which was earlier tendered as follows: 1) Pada 06/02/2018 jam lebih kurang 3.00 petang, Pengadu Insp G/20172 Nor Azura Binti Zahari bersama (5) anggota JSJ IPD Pasir Mas buat tangkapan terhadap (3) lelaki setelah hasil soal siasat terlibat dengan Seksyen 26H Akta Anti Penyeludupan orang dan Antipemerdagangan Migran di Perkarangan Balai Polis Rantau Panjang, Kelantan. 2) Tangkapan dibuat setelah tangkapan awal oleh Insp G/16158 Mohamad Idris Bin Abdul Majid bersama (15) orang Pegawai dan Anggota Batalion 7 PGA, Kuantan, Pahang, terhadap Tertuduh Pertama nama Nik Haniff Bin Nik Hasain Kpt: 840930-03-5843, Tertuduh Kedua nama Mr. Maharokeh No. Passport: AA8638792 dan Mohd Hisyam Bin Hanifah Kpt: 890408-03-6291 di sebuah rumah Lot 25, Lorong Pasar Lama, Rantau Panjang, Kelantan. 5 3) Insp G/16158 Mohamad Idris Bin Abdul Majid seterusnya buat pemeriksaan tubuh badan telah menjumpai (1) batang anak kunci didalam poket seluar yang dipakai Tertuduh Pertama, dan sambil di pandu arah oleh Tertuduh Pertama telah kesebuah rumah berhampiran iaitu dialamat No. 49H Kedai Lama, Rantau Panjang dan dapati berkunci mangga dari luar dan dengan mengunakan kunci yang dijumpai pada Tertuduh Pertama telah membuka mangga pintu rumah dan buat pemeriksaan didalamnya dapati terdapat (17) orang lelaki dan (5) orang perempuan warganegara asing berada didalamnya. 4) Pemeriksaan lanjut kesemua penghuni dalam rumah tersebut dapati nama Tahan Oo, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 30 tahun, (4) nama Ayng Zaw, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 37 tahun, (5) nama Kuaw San, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 40 tahun, (6) nama Soe Neing, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 40 tahun, (7) nama Thien, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 25 tahun, (8) nama Sulam Mung, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 20 tahun, (9) nama Ngin Suan Lian, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 16 tahun, (10) nama Nayla, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 20 tahun, (11) nama Tun Tha Woo, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 40 tahun, (12) nama Aung Nay Min, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 20 tahun, (13) nama Way Linn, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 23 tahun, (14) nama Tin .Win, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 35 tahun, (15) nama Mg Zaw Win, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 40 tahun, (16) nama Myokoko, lelaki 6 W/Negara Myanmar umur 30 tahun, (17) nama Thein Hwt Aung, lelaki W/Negara Myanmar umur 25 tahun, (18) nama Hla Oo, Perempuan W/Negara Myanmar umur 27 tahun, (19) nama Mya Hwe, Perempuan W/Negara Myanmar umur 23 tahun, (20) nama Thein Thein, Perempuan W/Negara Myanmar umur 25 tahun, (21) nama San Mu, Perempuan W/Negara Myanmar umur 40 tahun dan tahun dapati tiada mempunyai apa-apa dokumen perjalanan yang sah. lnsp G/16158 Mohamad Idris Bin Abdul Majid bersama anggota bawa kesemua tangkapan ke Balai Polis Rantau Panjang, Kelantan untuk siasatan lanjut. 5) Pengadu bersama anggota tangkap kedua-dua Tertuduh dan serah kepada Pegawai Penyiasat Jenayah Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Pasir Mas, ASP G/13487 Roslan Bin Hussin untuk siasatan lanjut. 6) Hasil siasatan kedua-dua Tertuduh telah mengaku menyembunyikan dan melindungi (22) orang warganegara asing daripada ditangkap di sebuah rumah no 49H Kedai Lama, Rantau Panjang, Kelantan. Kedua-dua Tertuduh telah dituduh dan mengaku salah sehagaimana pertuduhan pada hari ini. D. PLEA IN MITIGATION BY COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE ACCUSED [8] The first Accused was 34 years old at the time of commiting the offence. He has 4 children aged 13, 10, 7 and 1 year 8 months, all being 7 taken care by the wife and mother in law. This was his first conviction under this Act but he is currently serving a 17 month imprisonment sentence for obstructing government servant in discharging their duties (Section 186 of the Penal Code). By pleading guilty it has saved the court’s time. The Accused was remorseful and had repented and wanted to “turn over a new leaf” after serving his time in prison. He prayed for a lenient sentence. [9] The second Accused is a Thai national. He was 20 years old at the time of committing the offence. He regretted his involvement in this case. He has repented and remorseful. He prayed for lesser sentence so that he can go back earlier to Thailand and takes care of his mother. His father had died. He has no previous conviction under this Act but is currently serving a sentence under section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act. E. SUBMISSION BY THE PROSECUTION [10] The learned DPP submitted briefly that the offence committed was serious and an appropriate sentence should be meted out, as this is a security offence. The acts of both the Accused Persons had caused an influx of illegal immigrants entering the country illegally. She prayed for a severe sentence. F. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT [11] The offending and the sentencing provision is fused in a single provision and is reproduced below which reads: 8 Concealing or harbouring smuggled migrants and migrant smugglers “26h. (1) Any person who conceals or harbours, or prevents, hinders or interferes with the arrest of any person knowing or having reason to believe that such person is— [12] It is patently clear from the provision, that the maximum sentence that this court can impose will be 10 years imprisonment. In so far as “fine” is concerned, it is not mandatory, because of the word “shall also be liable”. (See the Federal Court case of Jayanathan v PP (infra); Goh Kheng Seong v PP (infra) and PP v Man Bin Ismail (1939) MLJ 207. [13] It is trite that whilst the court has a wide discretion in imposing sentence, the court is guided by certain sentencing principles of which public interest is of paramount importance and should superceede the personal interest of the Accused/Respondent. [see R v Ball (25 CR) APPR 9 164] and [PP v Loo Choon Fatt (1976) 2 MLJ 256]. Hence the court cannot willy nilly embark on some unauthorized or extraneous exercise of discretion before meting out the sentence. [14] This court had considered the public interest element in this case in the sense that the sentence imposed should be deterrent in nature as this offence involved the security and also the reputation of the country as Malaysia is now ranked in the third tier of the United Nation Watch List on human trafficking. [15] This court on the other hand, did not disregard the rights of the Accused/Respondent i.e. to have his personal interest considered by this court as well (see Tan Sri Abdul Rahim bin Mohd Noor v PP (2001) 1 MLJ 193. There are circumstances in which public interest itself warrants that the Accused should not be put behind bars for far too long as that will do more harm than good as it might cause a crushing effect on him, and could turn him into a hardened criminal. [16] Hence a sentence that should be imposed should be one that could induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. In the words of Hashim Yeop Sani, High Court Judge Malaya as he then was in the case of Loo Choo Fatt (supra) who said: “The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living”. 10 [17] Hence this court needs to strike a balance in order to do justice to the Accused/Respondent and to the public. Towards that end, this court had embarked on a balancing exercise, balancing the public interest with that of the fact amongst others that the 2 Accused Persons had repented and remorseful, had promised to “turn over a new leaf” upon completing their time in prison, and had pleaded guilty thus saving the court’s time. After embarking on a balancing exercise this court ruled that, in so far as the circumstances of this case were concerned, public interest will be best served by imposing a sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment. [18] This court had also considered that both the Accused Persons had pleaded guilty immediately after the first formal witness had given evidence. There are a plethora of authorities to suggest that this factor should also be considered as much public time and money will be spared if an accused person admits his guilt, thus avoiding a prolonged and unnecessary trial [PP Vs Ravindran and Others (1992) 1 LNS 47] and Sau Soon Kim Vs PP (1975) 2 MLJ 134]. [19] The Accused Persons are not a habitual criminal but a first offender for the offence under this Act. It is an established principle of law of sentencing that a first offender should be given some leniency, save where the offence committed, even though for the first time, were so serious that there was no reason or basis to give concession to this fact. Cases that fall into this category are for example, heneious crimes like taking away one’s life, armed robbery where victim was shot, grevious hurt or having in possession of dangerous drugs in extraordinary large quantity [see PP Vs Tia Ah Leng (infra)]. 11 [20] Nothing of this sort happened in this case. [21] This court also had followed the sentencing trend of this type of offence under the Act. Admittedly there is a dearth of reported cases on sentencing especially under this section. However, for the more serious case of trafficking in persons by means of force or threat pursuant to section 13 this Act, the courts had sentenced offenders between 7 and 8 years imprisonment after a full trial as can be seen in the case of Kwong Tuck Choy & Anor v PP (2013) 1 LNS 1440 and Chang Choi v PP (2013) 7 CLJ 166 respectively. The offence under section 13 carries the maximum prison sentence of 20 years with a minimum prison sentence of 3 years.