Pendakwa Raya Jabatan Perhilitan v Abdul Haq Bin Abdul Razak (63ES-2-06/2018)

The accused was charged with an offence under section 69(1) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010.

The charge read as follows: Bahawa kamu pada 06 Jun 2018, jam lebih kurang 2.00 petang, di dalam sebuah kenderaan jenis Perodua Axia WC5455W di kawasan parkir kenderaan di Seremban Gateway, dalam Daerah Seremban, dalam negeri Negeri Sembilan telah didapati menyimpan satu (1) 2 ekor anak Ungka Tangan Putih, White handed Gibbon (Hylobates lar) iaitu hidupan liar yang dilindungi sepenuhnya yang tersenarai di dalam Jadual Kedua yang tidak matang, Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar Tahun 2010 [Akta 716] tanpa permit khas. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 69(1) dan boleh dikenakan hukuman di bawah Seksyen dan Akta yang sama.

The charge was read and explained to the accused. He understood the said charge and decided to plead guilty. He maintained the same plea after the consequence of his plea was read and explained. A statement of fact was then tendered. It is reproduced below: Pengadu dalam kes ini ialah Pegawai Penguatkuasa Jabatan PERHILITAN Semenanjung Malaysia berpangkat Penolong Pengarah, MOHD EDINOOR ANUAR BIN SUKAMI (No. Kad Pengenalan: 861230-01-5131). Bertindak atas maklumat sindiket jenayah hidupan liar, pada 06/06/2018 jam lebih kurang 2.00 petang, di kawasan parkir kenderaan di Seremban Gateway, Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Pengadu Bersama-sama tiga anggota penguatkuasa PERHILITAN telah menahan seorang lelaki Melayu Bersama dengannya ada sebuah kereta Perodua Axia nombor pendaftaran WC5455W. Setelah memperkenalkan diri dengan menunjukkan kad kuasa kepada seorang lelaki Melayu 3 tersebut, Pengadu telah memeriksa kenderaannya dengan disaksikan oleh OKS sendiri. Hasil pemeriksaan, telah menemui satu (1) ekor hidupan liar disyaki anak Ungka Tangan Putih yang diletakkan di dalam sebuah kotak di tempat duduk bahagian belakang Perodua Axia nombor pendaftaran WC5455W. Selepas ditanya perihal hidupan liar tersebut, OKS memberitahu bahawa hidupan liat tersebut adalah miliknya dan untuk dijual. Setelah diminta, OKS tersebut gagal menunjukkan sebarang dokumen atau permit khas daripada Jabatan PERHILITAN. Pengadu telah menerangkan kesalahan yang telah OKS lakukan di bawah Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar Tahun 2010 [Akta 716] dan OKS tersebut faham. Butiran peribadi OKS tersebut seperti yang terdapat di dalam kad pengenalan yang telah diberikan olehnya seperti berikut: Nama : ABDUL HAQ BIN ABDUL RAZAK Kad Pengenalan : 860504-59-5061 Alamat : 3C-05-24 Pangsapuri Jaya Jalan Ilham U2/14 Taman TTDI Jaya 40150 Shah Alam, Selangor Kesemua barang kes telah disita serta satu Salinan Borang Senarai Benda Yang Disita (PHL01/2010) yang telah ditandatangani diserahkan kepada OKS. Senarai benda yang disita dicatatkan seperti berikut: 4

Satu (1) buah kenderaan Perodua Axia No. Pendaftaran WC5455W.

Satu (1) buah kotak yang mengandungi satu (1) ekor disyaki Ungka Tangan Putih.

Satu (1) ekor anak Ungka Tangan Putih yang ditemui di dalam satu (1) buah kotak.

Satu (1) unit telefon bimbit model i-phone serial number F97Q602CFNJM.

Satu (1) unit telefon bimbit model i-phone berwarna hitam.

Satu (1) unit pendrive berwarna merah hitam.

Satu (1) unit kunci kenderaan Perodua Axia.

Satu (1) set dokumen perjanjian sewa kereta Perodua Axia No. Pendaftaran WC5455W. Satu laporan polis JALAN CAMPBELL/008295/18 berhubung sitaan tersebut telah dibuat. Siasatan telah dijalankan di bawah Seksyen 69(1) Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar Tahun 2010 (Akta 716) dan mendapati OKS tidak mempunyai kebenaran terhadap penyimpanan/ urusniaga spesies Ungka Tangan Putih. Siasatan telah dijalankan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat Jabatan iaitu MOHAMAD HAKIM BIN MOHAMED KHAIRUDDIN (No. Kad Pengenalan: 880903-08- 5411). Hasil Laporan lengkap Pengecaman Spesies mendapati tertuduh telah melakukan kesalahan menyimpan spesies Ungka Tangan Putih, White-handed Gibbon (Hylobates lar) hidup yang tidak matang iaitu hidupan liar yang dilindungi 5 sepenuhnya dengan menyalahi undang-undang di bawah Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010 [Akta 716]. The accused had admitted to the facts of the case.

The learned prosecutor then tendered the relevant exhibits connected with the case and admitted by the accused. The accused was found guilty.

This is the mitigation put forth by the accused in the original language: Mohon denda yang paling minimum. Saya menanggung perubatan nenek yang tinggi, ibu dan anak buah yang masih bersekolah. Ayah sudah meninggal dunia. Saya tidak ada kerja tetap. Buat kerja kampung. Semua segala perbelanjaan saya yang tanggung. Mohon barang yang disita dikembalikan kepada saya (kereta itu saya sewa) dan juga telefon bimbit. Saya berharap dapat beraya dengan mereka. Saya janji tidak akan mengulangi kesalahan ini.

Then followed by rebuttal by the prosecutor. For that purpose, a written submission was produced to the court and the same was read loudly with some additional points as follows: 6

1.1 OKT tidak mempunyai rekod kesalahan yang lampau. Walau bagaimanapun OKT sangat dikehendaki oleh Bahagian Perisikan Jabatan PERHILITAN kerana menjalankan sindiket menjual pelbagai hidupan liar. Kini disertakan hasil daripada Analisa pen drive yang dirampas, gambar-gambar berkaitan hidupan liar yang dijual.

1.2 OKT telah menyalahi Seksyen 69(1) Akta 716 di mana OKT menyimpan seekor anak Ungka Tangan Putih tanpa permit khas daripada Jabatan PERHILITAN iaitu suatu kesalahan yang serius di bawah Akta ini.

1.3 Untuk makluman Mahkamah, hasil siasatan berpandukan Seksyen 69 Akta 716 iaitu siasatan melalui akses computer dengan menggunakan telefon dan pen drive telah diperolehi iaitu OKT terlibat dengan jenayah siber iaitu berurusniaga melibatkan pelbagai hidupan liar dan mempunyai rangkaian dengan luar negara di Hong Kong dan Singapura. Hasil jumlah harga yang ditawarkan mencecah sehingga RM45 ribu bagi seekor hidupan liar.

1.4 Pada tahun 2016 pihak Jabatan telah mengeluarkan surat amaran kepada semua pemilik akaun media social yang menjalankan jenayah siber iaitu urusniaga hidupan liar. 7

2.0

KEPENTINGAN AWAM 1 Di Malaysia Hidupan liar adalah merupakan suatu yang dipulihara kerana ianya adalah khazanah Negara yang sukar dinilai. Kerajaan telah mengambil pelbagai usaha untuk memastikan kelangsungan kewujudan sepsis ini di negara ini. Masyarakat harus bertanggungjawab untuk menjaga hidupan liar ini supaya tidak pupus, bukan sahaja untuk manfaat masyarakat pada hari ini tetapi juga untuk generasi akan dating. Kewujudan hidupan liar ini juga memberi keseimbangan kepada eko-sistem, kepupusan hidupan liar boleh memberi kesan kepada alam sekitar.

2.2 Untuk makluman mahkamah yang mulia ini, kes-kes berkaitan hidupan liar adalah semakin meningkat dari tahun ke tahun. Risiko yang tinggi sekiranya ditangkap oleh agensi penguatkuasa Kerajaan Malaysia serta hukuman denda yang sering dikenakan kepada penyeludup-penyeludup serta pemerdagangan melalui siber ini tidak lagi menjadi isu yang besar kerana jumlah keuntungan yang diperlehi daripada hasil urusniaga jauh lebih tinggi berbanding risiko dan jumlah denda yang dikenakan. Kesalahan OKT adalah satu kesalahan yang serius kerana status Malaysia sebagai negara membangun yang kaya dengan biodiversity telah luntur disebabkan oleh reputasi buruk negara sebagai “trafficking hub” dan “transit point” untuk perdagangan hidupan liar haram. Tindakan OKT telah secara langsung menyumbang kepada masalah ini. Sekiranya jenayah hidupan liar ini tidak dibendung, imej negara kita di mata dunia akan terjejas. 8

PRIMAT PEMBAWA PENYAKIT 3 Untuk makluman Mahkamah yang mulia, Jabatan PERHILITAN mengadakan kawalan ini juga disebabkan langkah pencegahan penyakit zoonoyik. Banyak laporan dan kajian yang didedahkan kemungkinan jangkitan virus Ebola dalam populasi spesis primat memberi peringatan yang tepat. Ancaman jangkitan virus zoonotic dari primat kepada manusia, terutamanya di Indonesia dan Asia Tenggara termasuklah di Malaysia (virus Chikungunya dikesan di Selangor dan Malaria Monyet dikesan di Sarawak) adalah berpunca daripada gigitan spesies nyamuk terhadap sepsis primat dan merebak kepada manusia. Kajian awal epidemic manusia menunjukkan virus tersebut berpunca oleh hubungan antara pemburu dan hidupan liar spesies primat. Paling penting, primat ini mati dan virus Ebola menjadi punca utama untuk kematian mereka. Jangkitan itu sangat berbahaya kepada primat dan menyebabkan banyak kematian, membuktikan spesies ini adalah takungan penyakit semula jadi atau perumah bagi virus penyakit zoonotic ini.

2.4 Mangsa Bisu (silent victim) Untuk makluman mahkamah yang mulia ini, Hidupan liar ini merupakan mangsa bisu (silent victim) di mana mereka tidak mampu untuk mengambil tindakan undang-undang ke atas penjenayah-penjenayah hidupan liar. Mereka juga tidak mampu melawan ketika ditangkap, ditembak, dicederakan dan dibunuh oleh pemburu-pemburu hidupan liar yang tidak berperi kemanusiaan. 9 Oleh yang demikian, adalah menjadi tanggungjawab semua rakyat Malaysia yang sayangkan khazanah negara yang tidak ternilai untuk membantu pihak berkuasa khususnya Jabatan Perhilitan untuk membawa penjenayah-penjenayah hidupan liar ini bagi pihak hidupan liar ke muka pengadilan dan dikenakan hukuman yang setimpal.

2.5 Hidupan liar tidak matang Berkaitan dengan Seksyen 69(1) kes hari ini, hidupan liar tidak matang. Dengan izin Yang Arif, saya mohon semua yang berada di dalam Mahkamah ini membayangkan anak kita yang baru lahir telah diambil oleh orang lain. Apa perasaannnya? Begitu juga dengan hidupan liar ini yang diburu dan diasingkan dari ibunya. Bagaimana sedihnya ibu tersebut apabila anaknya telah dicuri. Dan bagaimana perasaan anak tersebut untuk menyesuaikan diri tanpa kasih dan saying ibunya atau induknya. Pihak pendakwaan memohon agar perkara ini dititikberatkan atas sifat peri-ketidakkemanusian yang telah dilakukan oleh tertuduh.

3.0

3.1 OKT merupakan pesalah kali pertma dan tidak mempunyai sebarang rekod kesalahan lampau, faktor ini tidak semestinya menjadi faktor untuk meringankan hukuman lebih-lebih lagi apabila ia melibatkan kesalaahan yang serius dan kepentingan awam.

3.2 OKT sepatutnya menyelamatkan mengeksploitasi hidupan liar. Tindakan OKT mengeksploitasi hidupan liar untuk menjadikan haiwan peliharaan yang tidak matang ini adalah suatu tindakan yang tidak 10 berperikemanusian. OKT sepatutnya mengambil tindakan untuk menyelamat bukannya menjadikan haiwan peliharaan atau haiwan dagangan semata-mata untuk keuntungan. Dengan itu OKT telah memusnahkan khazanah negara yang tidak ternilai dan diancam kepupusan. Oleh yang demikian, sudah wajar OKT dikenakan hukuman yang setimpal.

3.3 Rayuan OKS juga cuba mendapatkan simpati dari Mahkamah dan bukannya empati.

3.4 Walaupun Mahkamah perlu melihat kepada rayuan serta mitigasi OKS dalam memutuskan hukuman, kepentingan awam sentiasa melebihi keperluan individu.

4.0

HUKUMAN PENCEGAHAN SELARAS DENGAN TUJUAN AKTA 1 Dalam kes ini, terdapat keperluan bagi hukuman yang berbentuk pencegahan selaras dengan tujuan Akta 716 ini digubal iaitu bagi memastikan jenayah berkaitan hidupan liar boleh dibenteras berikutan jenayah berkaitan hidupan liar yang makin berleluasa di negara ini. Ini dapat dilihat melalui kenyataan bekas YB Menteri Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar, Dato’ Doughlas Unggah Embas semasa Bacaan Kali Kedua dan Ketiga di Dewan Rakyat (Penyata Rasmi Dewan Rakyat 12 Julai 2010). Kenyataan beliau adalah seperti berikut: “Dalam mengambilkira keperluan pencegahan melalui penalty bersifat deterrent dengan izin, rang undang-undang ini telah 11 memasukkan elemen penjara mandatori bagi kesalahan demikian terutama bagi melindungi sepsis hidupan liar yang terancam. Hukuman dan denda yang dicadangkan dalam rang undang-undang ini menunjukkan komitmen kerajaan yang tinggi dalam menangani aktiviti jenayah hidupan liar kea rah membaiki imej nagtif negara yang dilabel sebagai hub kepada penyeludupa perdagangan haram hidupan liar antarabangsa…”

5.0 KESIMPULAN Puan, Perkara seperti ini perlulah dipandang serius. Ini kerana jumlah hidupan liar yang dilindungi adalah semakin berkurangan di habitat asalnya hasil ketamakan manusia ditambah pula dengan habitat yang semakin mengecil. Sekiranya pengambilan dan penyimpanan secara tidak terkawal terus dibiarkan, maka hidupan liar seperti sepsis sepsis Ungka Tangan Putih ini akan pupus. Lambat laun dan pada ketika itu, tiada lagi jalan yang boleh kita ambil untuk memulihkannya. Amat malang sekali jika kekayaan ekosistem biodiversity di Malaysia yang selama ini dapat kita banggakan hilang ditelan zaman akibat kerakusan generasi kini. Oleh itu, demi kepentingan negara, demi kedaulatan undang-undang, demi generasi akan datang agar dapat terus melihat dengan mata mereka sendir hidupan liar yang terancam ini, dan demi kepentingan awam, pihak pendakwa dengan rendah hati memohon kepada Mahkamah yang mulia ini agar satu hukuman yang sangat berat dapat diberikan kepada OKT agar memberikan pengajaran dan tauladan bukan sahaja kepada tertuduh dan masyarakat awam tetapi juga memberi amaran keras kepada setiap satu 12 individu bahawa jenayah yang melibatkan hidupan liar adalah satu jenayah yang dipandang serius oleh Mahkamah di Malaysia.

I was satisfied with the admission made by the accused and I proceeded to record a conviction against him based on the charge.

After considering the mitigation, the rebuttal by the learned prosecutor and the surrounding circumstances of the case, the accused was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment commencing from the date of arrest and fine at RM20,000.00.

The accused was aggrieved with the decision of this court. He himself, through the prison, filed an appeal not only on sentence, but also on conviction, despite having unequivocally pleaded guilty to the charge. Basis of the sentence

In deciding the appropriate sentence, I was guided by the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lim Guan Eng v Public Prosecutor [1998] 3 MLJ 14 when Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) had this to say: The principles governing sentencing have been stated on numerous occasions and we think no assistance is to be had by going through all the 13 authorities on the subject. Suffice to say 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. Reasons must be given for imposing a particular sentence to enable an appellate court to ensure that there has been no error in principle. In PP v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256 at p 257, Hashim Yeop A Sani J (later CJ (Malaya)) admirably expressed the correct psychological approach to sentencing as follows: Presidents and magistrates are often inclined quite naturally to be over-sympathetic to the accused. This is a normal psychological reaction to the situation in which the lonely accused is seen facing an array of witnesses with authority. The mitigation submitted by a convicted person will also normally bring up problems of family hardship and the other usual problems of living. In such a situation, the court might perhaps find it difficult to decide as to what sentence should be imposed so that the convicted person may not be further burdened with additional hardship. This in my view is a wrong approach. The correct approach is to strike a balance, as far as possible, between the interests of the public and the interests of the accused. Lord Goddard LCJ in R v 14 Gronkowski [1946] 1 All ER 560 at p 561 offered some good advice when he said: The judge must consider the interests of justice as well as the interests of the prisoners. It is too often nowadays thought, or seems to be thought, that the interests of justice means only the interests of the prisoners.

In PP v Nguyen Thi Huong [2015] 2 CLJ 102, the respondent is a Vietnamese national. He was charged under four separate charges for the act of smuggling of trophies of wild animals protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010. The respondent pleaded guilty to all charges. In the determination on the adequacy of the sentences imposed by the court of the first instance, Collin Lawrence Sequerah JC (as he then was) had this to say: [8] As far as the principles relevant to sentencing are concerned the case of Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Mohd Noor v PP [2001] 4 CLJ 9; [2001] 3 AMR 3253; [2011] 3 MLJ held: It cannot be gainsaid that the most onerous function of any court is to decide the appropriate sentence in any criminal case. In deciding the appropriate sentence a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. In that context the interest of justice should no doubt take into account the interest of the offender. But it is often forgotten that the interest of justice 15 must also include the interest of the community. In assessing sentence the court should balance, not, of course forgetting that the interest of the public should be the uppermost consideration. ……… Public Interest [10] It is therefore clear that one of the foremost considerations in sentencing policy is that of public interest. But what is public interest? Strout’s Judicial Dictionary defines public interest as: “ A matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of community have a pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” So whose rights or liabilities can be said to be affected here? I do not think that there can be much argument that it would be in the public interest to ensure the protection of certain species of wildlife. It is also in keeping with the overall concept of public interest that such rights of liabilities as are affected can be gleaned from a particular Act that has been amended in order to reflect the intended public interest. In the instant case that Act is the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 (‘Act 716’). This Act replaced the Wildlife Preservation Act 1972 (‘Act 76’). One of the main aims in replacing Act 76 with Act 716 was because the punishment for offences 16 under Act 76 prescribed disproportionately lower sentences for offences committed. Reference To Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) [11] The policy reasons behind the amendment to the said Act can be gathered from the reference to the official Parliamentary debates or the Penyata Rasmi Parlimen Dewan Rakyat (Hansard) dated 12 July 2010 Second and Third Reading where the then Right Honourable Minister for Natural Resources and Environment, YB Dato’ Douglas Uggah Embas said in Bahasa Malaysia: ..di antara kelemahan akta yang sedia ada adalah denda yang terlalu rendah untuk membanteras jenayah berkaitan hidupan liar. Bagi pandangan orang ramai, denda ini bersifat deterent dengan izin. Ia didapati tidak setimpal dengan nilai komersial dan estetik hidupan liar yang dilindungi di bawah akta tersebut. Sebagai contoh, penalty maksimum bagi kesalahan membunuh seekor harimau di bawah akta sedia ada adalah RM15,000 atau penjara tidak melebihi lima tahun sahaja kalau dibandingkan dengan nilai komersial yang boleh menjangkau RM200,000. Di bawah rang undang-undang ini, kesalahan yang sama mengenakan denda minimum sebanyak RM100,000 dan maksimum RM500,000 dan penjara mandatori tidak melebihi lima tahun. Dalam mengambilkira keperluan pencegahan melalui penalty bersifat deterrent dengan izin, rang undang-undang ini telah memasukkan elemen penjara mandatori bagi kesalahan demikian terutama bagi melindungi sepsis 17 hidupan liar yang sangat terancam. Hukuman dan denda yang dicadangkan dalam rang undang-undang ini menunjukkan komitmen kerajaan yang tinggi dalam menangani aktiviti jenayah hidupan liar kea rah membaiki imej negative negara yang dilabel sebagai hab kepada penyeludupan perdagangan haram hidupan liar antarabangsa… [12] He went further on to say: Di samping itu, akta ini kelak akan memantapkan lagi usaha kerajaan dalam membasmi aktiviti jenayah hidupan liar dan mengikis pelabelan Malaysia sebagai had penyeludupan dan perdagangan haram hisupan liar antarabangsa demi menjamin kewujudan species-species tersebut sebagai warisan negara demi generasi yang akan datang. [13] From a distillation of what was said by the Right Honourable Minister above, the previous Act had proved inadequate in addressing the issues regarding the conservation of wildlife. One of the main reasons given was the manifest inadequacy of the punishment imposed for offences under the old Act in comparison with the commercial and aesthetic value of the protected species of wildlife concerned. It was also felt that there was a necessity to impose a punishment of mandatory imprisonment term as a means of deterrence from this sort of crime. This was felt necessary in the light of the negative image of the nation in being labelled as the hub for international wildlife smuggling. It was 18 also felt necessary to ensure the preservation of such protected species for posterity. The policy reasons underlying the amendment to the Act is thus clear. It was to address the rampancy with which this crime was being committed and to also prevent the progressive extinction of such species of such wildlife protected according to the schedules in the Act. [14] The court will therefore be failing in its duty, if a strong message was not sent out that such crimes would not merely result in a ‘slap on the wrist’ but with severe punishment in keeping with the aims and objectives of Parliamentary intention in amending such Act. A mode of sentence that would result in a deterrence to would be offenders was therefore justified under the circumstances. [15] This court is further entitled to take judicial notice under s.56 Evidence Act 1950 (‘Act 56’) from news, articles and the press in general as to the rampancy of such offences in the country. As a matter of fact, it was as recent as the 28th Sultan Azlan Shah Lectures held on 9 October 2014 that the invited speaker, Lord Carnwarth of Notting Hill, a justice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, in his talk on Environmental Law in a Global Society made mention of Malaysia as being listed as one of the top 12 countries in the world for illegal wildlife smuggling. This observation does not augur well for the image 19 of the nation. This court is entitled to take such matters into account in assessing the adequacy of sentence passed for such an offence.

With the above principles, I shall now revert to the case at hand.

As said, the accused in this case was charged with an offence under section 69(1) of Act 716 for keeping an immature white-handed gibbon (hylobates lar) without a special permit.

The punishments provided under the said provision are fine not exceeding RM200,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

In deciding the appropriate sentence for a 32-year-unmarried-accused person, it is perhaps convenient here to know the status of white-handed gibbon (hylobates lar) under Act 716.

White-handed gibbon (hylobates lar) is a totally protected wildlife as listed under the Second Schedule of Act 716 which requires a special permit to, inter alia, keep it. Unlike permit and license, a special permit may only be approved by the licensing officer after obtaining the approval of the Minister. This will show how important is the said 20 primate. No provision is made to allow a person holding the said special permit to sell the said primate (see section 11 of the Act 716).

Here, the facts of the case tendered by the prosecution and admitted by the accused showed that the primate was kept for trading and/or sale. This was totally against the mandatory requirement under the law and it should not be tolerated.

The white-handed gibbon is classified as Endangered on the IUCN1 Red List and listed on Appendix I of CITES2. Rapid loss of habitat poses the principle threat to gibbons, placing their future in great peril. With breathtaking speed the forests of Southeast Asia are being cut down due to logging and agriculture, leaving forest inhabitants an ever smaller region in which to live.3

In some countries, particularly Thailand, gibbons in the illegal pet trade are almost always born in the wild. Since infants are preferred, they are captured by killing the mother. The young are taken after the 1 International Union for Conservation of Nature 2 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. It is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Malaysia is one of the contracting parties and we are of eight countries identified by CITES as being of “primary concern” and heavily implicated in the illegal trade in ivory. 3White-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar), https://www.arkive.org/white-handed-gibbon/hylobates-lar/, retrieved on 27 July 2018 21 mother has fallen with the infant still clutching to her chest or, in other cases, when the infant comes to the ground to investigate what has happened (Cheyne 2009). However, it is estimated that only one in three gibbons actually survives the initial fall (“Gibbon Update News”). Because gibbons typically travel with their family unit, it is likely for the other adults within the group-an aggressive and defensive father, for example-to be shot as well. Even if they are not killed, the pattern may severely affect the population dynamics of the species.4It has long been noted that primates who undergo maternal separation, social isolation and stressful captive conditions often exhibit abnormal and detrimental behavior (Harlow 1951).

For me, keeping the said primate without a special permit, is like a party to above stated brutality indirectly.

Malaysia is known as being a transit point, a source country, as well as a consumer hub for endangered wildlife. A lenient punishment would not eradicate the said reputation.

Premised on the above, public interest requires this court to pass a deterrent sentence on the accused not only as a lesson to him but also 4 Shalana Jo Gray, Conservation Difficulties for Hylobates Lar: White-Handed Gibbons and the Illegal Pet Trade, http://www.academia.edu/1503391/Conservation_Difficulties_for_Hylobates_Lar_White-Handed_Gibbons_and_the_Illegal_Pet_Trade, retrieved on 27 July 2018 22 to deter the other people who are currently dealing with the same offence or likely offenders.

Why do I choose 3 years imprisonment and fine at RM20,000.00 as the appropriate sentence?

In PP v Nguyen Thi Huong’s case, supra, as said, the respondent was charged under four separate charges for the acts of smuggling of trophies of wildlife species protected under the First Schedule of Act

The charges were framed under:

first charge – section 60 (1) of Act 716 which carries a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

second charge – section 65 of Act 716 which carries a fine not less than twenty thousand ringgit and not more than fifty thousand ringgit and imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

third charge – section 68(1)(b) of Act 716 which carries a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both. 23

forth charge – section 71 which carries a fine of not less than thirty thousand ringgit and not more than one hundred thousand ringgit and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

The respondent had pleaded guilty to all four charges and on appeal, the High Court set aside the sentences imposed by the learned Sessions Court judge and substituted it with the following:

first charge – 12 months’ imprisonment from date of arrest

(ii) second charge – 6 months’ imprisonment from date of arrest and fine of RM40,000 in default four months’ imprisonment.

(iii) third charge – 18 months’ imprisonment from date of arrest.

(iv) fourth charge – 18 months’ imprisonment from date of arrest and fine of RM50,000 in default five months’ imprisonment

In our present case, the offence was more serious because it involves the totally protected wildlife as specified under schedule 2 of Act 716 and not merely protected wildlife under schedule 1 of the same Act. Further, the subject matter in this case is and immature white-handed gibbon (hylobates lar) which is still alive.

Secondly, the punishment provided for the offence committed by the accused is much more severe than the ones under section(s) 60 (1), 65, 68(1)(b) and 71 of Act 716. Under section 69(1) the punishments 24 provided are fine not exceeding RM200,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

This ground of sentencing is an extension to my brief grounds delivered in the open court.

Having considered the plea of guilty by the accused, the mitigating factor and the aggravating factors, it is my considered view that the sentence imposed on the accused is the appropriate ones. Dated 6th August 2018 t.t. (MAIMOONAH BINTI AID) Sessions Court Judge Seremban 25

Mr Mohd Zaki for the Plaintiff (En Ismail bin Abdullah with him) (Jabatan Perhilitan Negeri Sembilan)

Accused (Unrepresented)