Content
1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH 5 IN THE STATE OF PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-1-01/2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-2-01/2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-3-01/2023 10 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-4-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-2-01/2022 Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-3-01/2022 Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-4-01/2022 15 Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-5-01/2022) BETWEEN MASRI BIN MUSA 20 (NRIC. NO: 731101-08-5541) ... APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT 25 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT [1]. This case came up on an appeal from the Sessions Court Teluk Intan, only on sentencing. This court has heard the appeal and delivered its 30 decision on 6 October 2023. The Appellant/Accused not being satisfied with the decision instructed the prison authority to appeal on the decision to reduce on the sentencing. Hence, my grounds for the said decision. 35 Background Facts [2]. The Appellant/Accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on 7 charges under three (3) different cases. They are as follows: (charges are cited in the original text):- 40 1st Case No. :(AC-62JSK-2-01/2022) 1st Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN NOVEMBER 45 2016 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 3.00 PETANG, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( 50 name and National Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH 55 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment from the date of arrest on 25 June 2021 and (1) 60 stroke of caning. 2nd Charge HUJUNG BULAN NOVEMBER 2016 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.00 TENGAH MALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR 65 PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect 70 her identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 75 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and (1) stroke of caning and the sentence to run consecutively. 3rd Charge 80 AWAL BULAN DISEMBER 2016 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.00 TENGAH MALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK 85 TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( name and National Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN 90 KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 354 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and (1) stroke of caning. 95 2nd Case No.: (AC-62JSK-3-01/2022) 4th Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN MEI 2017 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 4 PETANG, SEMASA BERADA 100 DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( al Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her 105 identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 354 110 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and (1) stroke of caning and the sentence to run consecutively after case AC-62JSK-2-01/2022. 3rd Case No.: (AC-62JSK-4-01/2022) 115 5th Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN MEI 2017 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 4 PETANG, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH 120 HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN SUMBANG MAHRAM DENGAN (vict Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity). YANG MANA OLEH KERANA PERHUBUNGAN KAMU DENGANNYA ADALAH TIDAK DIBENARKAN DI BAWAH UNDANG- 125 UNDANG, HUKUM AGAMA YANG TERPAKAI KEPADA KAMU UNTUK BERKAHWIN DENGANNYA. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH 130 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 12 years imprisonment and Six (6) strokes of caning and the sentence to run separately from the case AC-62JSK-2-01/2022 and AC- 62JSK-3-01/2022. 135 4th Case No.: (AC-62JSK-5-01/2022) 6th Charge 3 MEI 2018 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH 140 KURANG 12.00 TENGAHMALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR KEDUA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN AMANG SEKSUAL DENGAN CARA MENYENTUH KEMALUAN 145 ( deliberately deleted to protect her identity). OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 14(a) ATAS KESALAHAN SEKSUAL TERHADAP KANAK-KANAK 2017 DAN DIBACA BERSAMA SEKSYEN 16(1) AKTA YANG 150 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and 1 stroke of caning. Additionally, under Section 16(1) of the Sexual Offenses Against Children Act 2017, 1 year 155 imprisonment and 2 strokes of caning. There is also a provision for 1 year of supervision under Section 14(a) of the same Act and mandatory counselling while in prison. The sentence of imprisonment is to run separately from the cases AC-62JSK-2- 01/2022 and AC-62JSK-3-01/2022. 160 7th Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN SEPTEMBER 2018 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.00 TENGAHMALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 165 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN AMANG SEKSUAL DENGAN CARA MENYENTUH KEMALUAN ( Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity). OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG 170 BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 14(a) ATAS KESALAHAN SEKSUAL TERHADAP KANAK-KANAK 2017 DAN DIBACA Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years 175 imprisonment and 1 stroke of caning. Additionally, under Section 16(1) of the Sexual Offenses Against Children Act 2017, 1 year imprisonment and 2 strokes of caning. There is also a provision for 1 year of supervision under Section 14(a) of the same Act and mandatory counselling while in prison. The sentence of 180 imprisonment is to run separately from the cases AC-62JSK-2- 01/2022, AC-62JSK-3-01/2022, and 62JSK-4-01/2022. Trial [3]. A total of eight (8) witnesses were called by the Prosecution at the 185 prosecution stage and upon defence being called only the Appellant/ Accused gave evidence on oath and was cross-examined. Based on the testimonies of the witnesses and the exhibits presented, the Sessions Court Judge decided at the end of the defence case that the Prosecution has successfully proved their case beyond reasonable 190 doubt and convicted the Appellant/ accused on all the 7 charges as stated above. [4]. The Appellant/accused is dissatisfied with the decision of the Sessions Court Judge and hereby appeals to this Honourable Court 195 on the sentence. Appeal to High Court [5]. The Appellant/accused is challenging the sentence on plainly 3 grounds: 200 a. That it is 'manifestly excessive.' The total years of Imprisonment imposed is 32 years, distributed as follows: 9 years for the 1st case (AC-62JSK-2-01/2022), 3 years for the 2nd case (AC- 62JSK-3-01/2022), 12 years for the 3rd case (AC-62JSK-4- 01/2022), and 8 years for the 4th case (AC-62JSK-5-01/2022). 205 Further the Appellant/ accused is sentenced to 12 strokes of caning, with 3 strokes for the 1st case, 1 stroke for the 2nd case, 6 strokes for the 3rd case, and 2 strokes for the 4th case. b. The Appellant/Accused's counsel argues that the Appellant/ 210 Accused faced 7 counts in total, but the charge in the 3rd case is based on the same act as the 2nd case, but was charged under different provisions of the law that is under Section 354 and Section 376B of the Penal Code. The two (2) offences were clearly part of the same transaction as they were 215 committed on the same date, time and place i.e. it refers to the same act. The rationale for the one-transaction rule is that consecutive sentences are not appropriate. Therefore, the Appellant/Accused submits that the lower court judge erred in meting out the sentence in the 3rd and 2nd cases to run 220 consecutively. c. The Appellant/Accused's counsel refers to Exhibit P12, which mentions a perineal examination by Dr. Sharifah Raihan bt Syed Kamaruddin (SP7) on 25 June 2016 at 10.40 am, predating the 225 incidents in the charges. Thus, the Appellant/Accused argues that the lower court's sentence is grossly excessively due to the lack of perineal examination findings or medical evidence related to the alleged incidents on the specified dates. The "25 June 2016" date on P12 appears to be a typographical error; however, 230 this issue was not brought up by the Appellant/Accused in the lower court, either during the trial or in submissions. This line of argument, considered an afterthought and lacking merit, typically pertains to acquittal, whereas the current appeal is solely focused on the sentence. 235 The Law on Appeal against Sentence [6]. The test for an appeal against a sentence is that the Appellant/ Accused must demonstrate that the trial judge erred by imposing a sentence that does not comply with valid sentencing principles. This is 240 outlined in the case of Adam Atan v. PP [2009] 1 CLJ 33: In an appeal against sentence, the initial function of this court is one of review only. The fact that each of us sitting separately or together would have imposed a lesser sentence is irrelevant. The appellant must satisfy this court that the sentencing court has 245 either erred in principle or imposed a sentence that manifestly excessive. [7]. In the oft-quoted case of Kenneth John Ball (1951) 35 Cr App R 164, which is referenced among others in Public Prosecutor v. Sulaiman 250 Ahmad [1992] 3 CLJ Rep 447; [1992] 4 CLJ 2283; [1993] 1 MLJ 74, it is a well-established legal principle that an appellate court usually does not intervene in a sentence that has been judiciously determined by a lower court, provided the sentence adheres to the correct legal principles. An exception to this rule occurs when the sentence is either 255 manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate, or if it does not comply with the law. This is what Hilbery J commented in Kenneth John Ball (supra): sentence a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public 260 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 265 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 270 living. Our law does not, therefore, fix the sentence for a particular crime, but fixes a maximum sentence and leaves it to the court to decide what is, within that maximum, the appropriate sentence for each criminal in the particular circumstances of each case. Not only in regard to each crime, but in regard to each criminal, the court has 275 [8]. The case of Bhandulananda Jayatilake v. Public Prosecutor [1982] 1 MLJ 83, also establishes principles on sentencing, emphasizing the need to balance public interest and the offender's interests: 280 For a discretionary judgment of this kind to be reversed by this court, it must be shown to our satisfaction that the learned judge was embarking on some unauthorised or extraneous or irrelevant exercise of discretion. We are far from convinced that any criticism 285 of the learned judge is warranted. He took the course he did, in outweighing the plea of mitigation in favour of the public interest with a desire to uphold the dignity and authority of the law as administered in this country. We agree. That must receive the greatest weight. It is a serious offence to give false testimony, for 290 it is in the public interest that the search for truth should, in general and always, be unfettered. The courts are the guardians of the public interest (see the Exclusive Brethren case [1980] 3 All ER (underlined is my emphasis) 295 [9]. Also, in the case of Public Prosecutor V Govindnan A/L Chinden Nair [1998] 2 MLJ 181, Augustine Paul J emphasized that when passing a sentence, the primary considerations must include public interest. He clarified that public interest represents justice not only for 300 the Accused but also for society at large. His Lordship said: be one of the prime considerations (see PP v Teh Ah Cheng [1976] 2 MLJ 186). A major element of public interest is that justice means justice not only to the accused but also justice 305 to society. Accordingly, in passing sentence, a court has to consider not only the offence and the offender, but also the interests of society. The court acts as a vehicle to show 310 [10]. Having said that, the High Court typically refrains from interfering with a sentence when exercising its revisionary powers, unless it finds the lower court's sentence to be clearly inadequate, excessively harsh, unlawful, or inappropriate considering all presented facts or those that the court is expected to judicially notice. This suggests that for the High 315 Court to intervene in the sentencing, the lower court must have significantly misapplied the correct sentencing principles. It is a firmly established practice that the High Court does not change a sentence merely because it might have chosen a different sentence. This principle was clearly stated by Hashim Yeop Sani J in Public 320 Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256 with the following words: normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence of the lower court is either manifestly inadequate or grossly 325 excessive or illegal or otherwise not a proper sentence having regard to all the facts disclosed on the record or to all the facts which the court ought to take judicial notice of, that is to say, that the lower court clearly has erred in applying the correct principles in the assessment of the sentence. It is a firmly established 330 practice that the court will not alter a sentence merely because it might have [11]. As such the criteria under which an appellate court may revise a lower court's sentencing decision, as established in the Court of Appeal case 335 of PP v. Ling Leh Hoe [2015] 4 CLJ 869, is summarised are as follows: a. The sentencing judge made an incorrect decision regarding the factual basis for the sentence. 340 b. The trial judge erred in understanding the material facts presented. c. The sentence was fundamentally flawed in its principles. 345 d. The sentence was either manifestly excessive or insufficient. [12]. Having reviewed the law governing appeals on sentencing, I will now evaluate the sentence meted out on the Appellant/Accused by the lower court, in light of the aforementioned legal principles. 350 The sentence meted out against the Appellant/Accused [13]. The sentence imposed on the Appellant/Accused falls within the legally permissible range with the prescribed limits for each charge. There was no violation of the maximum allowable sentence. The 355 judge's decision was consistent with legal provisions. Considering the nature of the offense, a sexual offense perpetrated against one's own child is a heinous and morally reprehensible act. It represents a severe breach of trust and duty, inflicting deep psychological and emotional harm on the victim. Such actions not only violate the sanctity of the 360 parent-child relationship but also fundamentally undermine the child's sense of safety and well-being, often leading to long-lasting trauma. This form of abuse is particularly egregious due to the inherent expectation of protection and care that a parent is morally and legally obligated to provide to their child. Taking into account of all these, the 365 sentence meted out is both reasonable and not excessive. It is conceivable that had another judge presided over this case, either at the lower court or on appeal, the sentence might have been even more severe to uphold justice. 370 [14]. The Appellant/Accused did not enter a guilty plea to warrant a reduction in the sentence. Considering the Appellant/A conviction after a full trial for a serious offense, where the Prosecution called (8) eight witnesses, with defence being called, the punishment is appropriate. 375 [15]. Courts must balance the interests of the public and the Appellant/ Accused, prioritizing public interest, especially in light of the disturbing rise in incestuous sexual crimes. It is particularly egregious when offenders, such as the Appellant/Accused, betray the trust of those 380 they should protect, pursuing personal desires over their welfare. This betrayal is accentuated in cases where the offender, like the Appellant/Accused, is a stepfather, a role that inherently demands providing protection, yet in this instance, it has been subverted by committing a grave offence. 385 [16]. In arriving at the decision by this court to uphold the sentence imposed by the lower court, this court referred to a passage from the case of Public Prosecutor v Sigol bin Singki [2022] 7 MLJ 1, which highlights the statistics of sexual offenses committed against children, especially by those in positions of trust, as mentioned in the "Rang 390 Undang-Undang Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 emphasized that most offenses are committed by family members, often within the home, which complicates detection and reporting. This often results in delayed reporting, with cases sometimes remaining 395 unrecognized until serious consequences, such as pregnancy, arise. The amendment to Section 16 was enacted to strengthen penalties, increasing the maximum imprisonment term from 20 to 25 years, thereby reflecting the gravity of abuse of trust. This amendment highlights the public importance of protecting vulnerable victims and 400 enforcing stricter penalties against family offenders. The passage referred to is as follows: trust to sexually assault the child victim. This fact could be gathered 405 from what w-Undang Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak- (see Rahman bin Mohamad (Lipis) when debating on the Bill stated that in the 10 years alone, the sexual offenders against children involved 410 biological fathers (23.9%), step-fathers (23%), uncles (18.7%), biological brothers (12.5%), cousins (7.2%), brother-in-laws (5.3%), step-brothers (4%), grandfathers (1.6%) and step-grandfathers (1%). 415 [18] The said minister was further recorded to have stated - kenalan itu sendiri, maknanya ahli keluarga itu sendiri. Oleh sebab itu bila saya mendengar hujahan daripada rakan-rakan sebentar tadi untuk menarik perhatian bahawa kita kena memainkan peranan di 420 sekeliling keadaan persekitaran kita, jiran-jiran kita, kita kena melihat apakah keadaan sebenar jiran-jiran kita itu. Akan tetapi perkara yang berlaku ini adalah disebabkan berlaku di dalam rumah itu sendiri. Kadang-kadang mereka tinggal di rumah kampung atau rumah bandar itu sendiri yang jaraknya jauh daripada orang ramai. 425 Bagaimana kita nak melihat perkara ini berlaku, sebab dia berlaku dalam rumah dia. Kalau sebagai seorang yang kita katakan tadi mahram dia sendiri dia lakukan perkara itu. Bagaimana kita nak mengesan setelah dia melakukan perkara tersebut, maka sudah pastilah dia juga melakukan ugutan terhadap mangsa itu sendiri. Jadi 430 kita mengharapkan supaya apa yang berlaku ini, kita hendaklah akui bahawa kanak-kanak ini sering terdedah dalam keadaan bahaya di kalangan anggota ahli keluarganya sendiri yang kita boleh anggap sebagai musang berbulu ayam ataupun haruan makan anak itu sendiri. 435 Dalam konteks penderaan kepada kanak-kanak ini, kebanyakan kes penderaan seksual terhadap kanak-kanak ini laporan biasanya lambat dibuat sebab yang saya katakan adalah disebabkan kena ugutan daripada ahli keluarga sendiri. Kadang-kadang kita sedar sehingga kanak-kanak ini telah mengandung, baru kita sedar ada 440 perubahan berlaku pada kanak-kanak ini barulah kita mengambil keputusan untuk membuat laporan polis. Kadang-kadang kita tidak membuat laporan polis kerana kita memikirkan ini adalah ahli keluarga kita sendiri melakukan. Kalau bapa dia sendiri atau bapa tirinya atau sebagainya, dia 445 menganggapkan bahawa satu mata pencarian akan hilang kalau mereka melakukan laporan tersebut. Maka inilah yang hendak kita bayangi dengan perubahan daripada akta-akta ini maka mungkin juga kita boleh serba sedikit mencegah daripada perkara yang berlaku itu, sebagaimana yang saya katakan lebih berbelas ribu kes 450 [19] In this respect, it must be noted that while section 14 already provides for imprisonment term of not exceeding 20 years, when read with section 16, the imprisonment term is increased to not exceeding 455 25 years. This clearly indicates that Parliament recognised the vulnerability of victims to persons who are in relationship of trust with them. Respectfully, it would be contrary to public interest to not give effect to the provision when dealing with cases of such nature. 460 [17]. In reaching this decision, the court is also mindful not to submit entirely to public interest or to excessively punish the Appellant/Accused, such as by ensuring they never see the light of day outside of prison, due to the seriousness of the offense committed. In Tuan Mat Tuan Lonik v. PP [2009] 4 CLJ 638, His Lordship Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA (as he 465 then was) in considering the issue of public interest, where the appellant pleaded guilty to the Sessions Court to 5 offences of rape punishable under s. 376B of the Penal Code and where the victim was his stepdaughter who was below the age of 16 years at the time of the rape incidents. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 470 15 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of the rotan for each and every offence. In total, sentence to serve was 75 years in jail and to receive 50 strokes of the rotan. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the term and to receive the maximum rotan of 24 strokes. In allowing the 475 appeal, His Lordship said this : e High Court order as we refused to submit to public opinion; public opinion is like the sword of Damocles that hover over the head of any trial judge, constantly intimidating the court to surrender to the 480 [18]. At paragraph 24, of the same case (Tuan Mat Tuan Lonik (supra)) His Lordship criticised the impracticality of sentencing a 48-year-old man to 75 years, surpassing average life expectancy and straining 485 logic, warning that such irrational sentences could invite public scrutiny and tarnish judicial credibility. This is what His Lordship said: An appellate court will not be overly ready to interfere with any sentence imposed by the trial court unless there are very good 490 reasons to do so. For purposes of this case, suffice if we merely peruse the sentences meted down, subsequently to be affirmed by the High Court, from the point of view of logic. It is statistically accepted that the average life span of a Malaysian man is 70 years whilst that of a Malaysian woman 75 years. In time the average 495 life span will increase. That being so, with the appellant now 48 years old, on average he has 22 years of good life left. To impose a sentence that will take him until the age of 123 years old, and knowing fully well that he never will serve the full term, not only is bizarre but strains the intelligence of the court. Any illogical 500 sentence may attract unnecessary scrutiny and negative comments from the public on how we awkwardly conduct 505 Conclusion [19]. Based on the above, and being mindful of the words of His Lordship Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA (as he then was), who compared public opinion to the 'sword of Damocles' hanging over trial judges as a 510 constant threat, implying that judges feel pressured or intimidated by public opinion to yield to the public's unreasonable demands', and considering the principle of law relating to sentencing in the long-standing case of Bhandulananda Jayatilake (supra) as stated by Raja Azlan Shah LP (later His Majesty YDPA) that judges, influenced 515 by human nature and individual perspectives, may reach different conclusions in similar cases, leading to varying sentences. As such the appellate court typically refrains from interfering unless there is a compelling reason, despite potential sentence disparities. This is what His Lordship said: 520 judges applying the same principles at the same time in the same country to similar facts may sometimes reach different conclusions (see Jamieson v Jamieson [1952] AC 525, 549). It is for that reason that some very conscientious judges have thought it their 525 duty to visit particular crimes with exemplary sentences; whilst others equally conscientious have thought it their duty to view the same crimes with leniency. Therefore, sentences do vary in apparently similar circumstances with the habit of mind of the particular judge. It is for that reason also that this court has said it 530 again and again that it will not normally interfere with sentences, and the possibility or even the probability, that another court would have imposed a different sentence is not sufficient, per se, to warrant this court's interference. 535 [20]. Accordingly, since this court found no significant error in the lower court's decision and sentencing, except for a minor error which was considered, the appeal is allowed partially. Specifically, we allow the sentences in cases AA-42JSKH-1-01/2023 and AA-42JSKH-3- 01/2023 to run concurrently, while upholding the lower court's 540 sentencing for the other offenses. Consequently, the total years of imprisonment imposed by the lower court remain unchanged as the net effect of this court's order. 545 Date: 11 December 2023 Moses Susayan 550 MOSES SUSAYAN Judicial Commissioner High Court in Malaya 555 at Ipoh, Perak 560 Counsel: 565 For Appellant/Accused : Azwan bin Abdul Wahab Advocates and Solicitors Omar Azwan & Partners Ampang, Selangor 570 For Respondent : Geetha Jora Singh Deputy Public Prosecutor Prosecution Unit Perak Legal Advisor Offices 575 (Notice: This Grounds of Judgment is subject to further editing) 580 Headnotes Appeal on Sentencing - test for an appeal against a sentence must demonstrate that the trial judge erred by imposing a 585 sentence that does not comply with valid sentencing principles or imposed a sentence that manifestly excessive. Sentencing - court should prioritize public interest, deterrence, rehabilitation, and tailor punishment to each case and the criminal - 590 High Court only revises lower court sentences if they are inadequate, excessive, illegal, or improperly based on the facts or law, not just due to differing views - court typically avoids interfering trial court sentences unless strongly justified, focusing on 595 logical and realistic considerations, such as the appellant's life expectancy against the sentence length.