Pendakwa Raya v Hasibullah Bin Mohd Ghazali (A-05(H)-276-08/2023)

Pendakwaan terhadap Responden bermula di Mahkamah Tinggi Taiping, Perak Darul Ridzuan, di mana Responden telah dituduh di atas satu (1) pertuduhan pindaan berikut: “Bahawa kamu pada 02.12.2020 jam lebih kurang 2.00 petang bertempat di Rumah No. 900, Jalan Masjid, Aulong, Taiping, di dalam daerah Larut Matang, di dalam Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya seberat 380.21 gram Cannabis dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama."

Pertuduhan telah dibacakan dan diterangkan kepada Responden di dalam Bahasa Malaysia. Responden mengaku salah, memahami sifat dan akibat pengakuan salahnya. Fakta kes dan ekshibit yang dikemukakan diakui benar oleh Responden.

Responden merayu kepada Mahkamah agar tidak mengenakan hukuman matı terhadap beliau. Setelah mendengar rayuan peringanan dan pemberatan hukuman oleh kedua-dua pihak, pada 1 Ogos 2023, Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman yang bijaksana telah menjatuhi hukuman pemenjaraan selama tempoh 15 tahun dari tarikh tangkap (2 Disember 2020) terhadap Responden. Namun begitu, sebatan rotan dikecualikan kerana usia Responden yang telah melebihi 50 tahun ketika hukuman ini di perintahkan.

Tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan tersebut, pada 4 Ogos 2023, Pendakwa Raya telah memfailkan Notis Rayuan (Kandungan 46) di Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap hukuman tersebut.

Sama ada hukuman pemenjaraan selama tempoh 15 tahun yang dijatuhkan oleh Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman yang bijaksana ini adalah berlandaskan kepada undang-undang ataupun sebaliknya.

Mengenai tempoh pemenjaraan, Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman yang bijaksana di dalam alasan penghakimannya mengatakan seperti berikut:

Then on 4.7.2023, the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 [Act 846] (the Act) came into force. The Long Title of the Act stated "An act to amend the Penal Code, the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971, the Arms Act 1960, the Kidnapping Act 1961, the DDA 1952, the Strategic Trade Act 2010 and the Criminal Procedure Code in order to abolish the mandatory death penalty, to vary the sentence relating to imprisonment for natural life and whipping, and to provide for matters connected therewith.

In particular, Part VI of the Act provides: “Amendment of section 39B

The Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which is referred to as the "principal Act" in this Part, is amended in section 39B-

in subsection (2), by substituting for the words "be punished with whipping of not less than fifteen strokes" the words "be punished with whipping of not less than twelve strokes" and

by deleting subsections (2A) and (2B).

Upon the coming into operation of this Act, if a person is convicted by any court for the commission of an offence under section 39B of the principal Act, the person, whether at a trial or on an appeal shall be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act even though the offence was committed before the date of coming into operation of this Act.".

The Hansard reported on 3.4.2023 during the tabling of the Abolitions of Mandatory Death Penalty Bill at the Dewan Rakyat, the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reforms) stated: Secara umumnya, siri mesyuarat dan perbincangan tersebut diadakan untuk meneliti penetapan dasar berkaitan hukuman gantian terhadap hukuman mati mandatori dengan mengambil kira aspek pemerkasaan hak asasi manusia selain mempertimbangkan kos pengurusan banduan di penjara seluruh negara serta pelaksanaan restorative justice, dengan izin, di Malaysia. Sehubungan itu, pada 17 Mac 2023, Mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri telah bersetuju dengan cadangan hukuman gantian terhadap hukuman mati mandatori iaitu hukuman mati atas budi bicara mahkamah atau hukuman pemenjaraan bagi suatu tempoh yang tidak kurang daripada 30 tahun tetapi tidak melebihi 40 tahun dan juga hukuman sebatan tidak kurang 12 kali. Dengan pemberian budi bicara kepada mahkamah dalam menjatuhkan hukuman mati, mahkamah boleh mengambil kira prinsip undang-undang yang terpakai dalam memutuskan sama ada hukuman mati perlu dikenakan iaitu antara lain terdapat anggapan yang memihak kepada hak seseorang untuk hidup yang tidak terbatas, dengan izin unqualified right to life.” (Emphasis added) [8] On 1.8.2023 when the case came up for full trial, the counsel for the Respondent informed the Court that his representation for the charge to be reduced to one under s.39A (2) of the DDA was rejected by the PP. Nevertheless, the Respondent had informed him that he (the Respondent) wanted the charge under s.39B (1)(a) to be read again to him as he wished to change his plea and would make his plea in mitigation for the death sentence to not be imposed upon him. The amended charge as above was read out to the Respondent in Bahasa Malaysia whereby he then pleaded guilty unconditionally. After confirming with the Respondent that he understood the nature and consequences of his plea, the Court recorded his plea of guilt and proceeded to the next step. [9] The DPP read of the facts of the case, marked as P3, and the Respondent agreed to the facts as read out. The Court asked him again if he wished to maintain his plea of guilt, to which the Respondent replied in the affirmative. After all the exhibits were produced and admitted to by the Respondent, the Court recorded the conviction upon his unqualified plea and after finding him guilty of the offence charged in P2. [10] In his plea in mitigation, counsel for the Respondent pleaded for the Court's mercy to not impose the death sentence upon his client as the latter had pleaded guilty and hence, showed his remorse and repented. By his plea of guilt, his client had saved the Court's time and costs. He was 58 years old married with 5 children aged between 5 and 28. His father had passed away and his 80 years old mother was ill. His wife was 55 years old and lived in Kuala Terengganu. He was on medication for diabetes and cholesterol problem. The Respondent pleaded for a second chance and that he would never commit the crime again and asked that the sentence be backdated to the date of arrest 2.12.2020. As he was 58 years old, counsel stated that he should not be given the sentence of whipping. Counsel also stated that now the Court has a choice to not impose the death penalty and there is no minimum sentence, whereas the maximum was 40 years imprisonment. [11] The learned DPP pressed for the death penalty due to public interest consideration as opposed to the interest of the Respondent despite the plea of guilt since the weight of drugs found was 380.21 gram which she stated was quite substantial. She confirmed his age and that the Respondent did not have any previous conviction recorded. [12] The facts of the case showed that the Respondent was arrested by the Raiding Officer, D/SI 89466 Anan a/l Veloo, about 1 meter away from a table in a room in his house. On that table was a tied up green pouch which contained 3 wrapped aluminium foil and 6 clear plastic packets containing compact dried leaves suspected to be Cannabis. The pouch also held another plastic packet containing dried leaves suspected to be Cannabis. Altogether they were confirmed in the Chemist Report to contain 380.21 grams of Cannabis. From the facts of the case, the Court gathered that even if a full trial was held and if convicted, he would be sentenced to imprisonment for up to 30 years; hence the Court sentenced the Respondent to 15 years imprisonment from the date of arrest. Due to his age, the Court did not impose the punishment of whipping. [13] The Respondent's guilty plea led the Court to mete out the said sentence as it was under the honest belief then that it had such a discretion to give a "discount" as per the case of Mohammed Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v PP [1988] 1 MLJ 187 where it was stated: "If there had not been a plea of guilty but a finding of guilt after trial, 20 years was the maximum term of imprisonment that could have been imposed. If 20 years would have been the term of imprisonment; then at the most, on account of the plea of guilty, the appellant could only be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 13 - 15 years.". [14] The Court, in mitigation, humbly avers that the error is purely unintentional and certainly not to subvert the administration of justice. As the matter cannot now be resolved under s.278 of the CPC, the appeal must be allowed to correct the error since the sentence passed is not in accordance with the law: Letitia Bosman v. Public Prosecutor and other appeals (No 1) [2020] 5 MLJ 277.” Alasan-Alasan Petisyen Rayuan Pendakwa Raya

Yang Arif Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman yang bijaksana telah khilaf dari segi undang-undang apabila menjatuhkan hukuman yang tidak berlandaskan undang-undang (not in accordance with law) terhadap Responden walaupun kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Responden di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama memperuntukkan hukuman penjara seumur hidup dan tidak kurang dua belas (12) kali sebatan.

Yang Arif Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila terlampau mengambilkira faktor Responden pesalah pertama tanpa mengimbanginya dengan kepentingan awam dalam menjatuhkan hukuman yang "manifestly inadequate" terhadap Responden.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila gagal menjatuhkan satu hukuman yang deteran terhadap Responden agar menjadi pengajaran kepada Responden sendiri dan juga bakal pesalah yang lain (would-be offenders). Keputusan Kami [7] Mengenai hukuman, dengan berkuatkuasanya Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 (Akta 846) pada 4 Julai 2023, mahkamah ini boleh mempertimbangkan faktor mitigasi dan pemberat di dalam melaksanakan kuasa budibicaranya untuk menentukan hukuman yang bersesuaian dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan sama ada untuk menjatuhkan hukuman mati atau pemenjaraan seumur hidup dan hendaklah jika tidak dihukum mati, dikenakan tidak kurang daripada dua belas (12) kali sebatan. [8] Kami sedar bahawa untuk seksyen 39B(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, Akta 846 tidak membuat apa-apa pindaan yang spesifik mengenai makna pemenjaraan seumur hidup. Ini berbeza dengan kesalahan membunuh orang di bawah Kanun Keseksaan, berdagang senjata api di bawah Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971, menahan mana-mana orang untuk wang tebusan, abduksi atau mengurung atau menahan dengan tidak berpatutan orang itu di bawah Akta Penculikan 1961, yang secara jelas memperuntukkan bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan seumur hidup adalah bagi suatu tempoh pemenjaraan yang tidak kurang daripada 30 tahun tetapi tidak melebihi 40 tahun. [9] Oleh kerana Akta 846 tidak menetapkan tempoh hukuman pemenjaraan seumur hidup bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B Akta Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, maka tafsiran pemenjaraan seumur hidup di bawah seksyen 3 Akta Keadilan Jenayah 1953 (Disemak 1988) (Akta 345) adalah terpakai. Seksyen ini memperuntukkan seperti berikut:

Life sentences Where any person is treated as having been sentenced or is hereafter sentenced to imprisonment for life, such sentence shall be deemed for all purposes to be a sentence of imprisonment for thirty years. [10] Di dalam kes Kannan Rama Chenderan v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1938, Mahkamah Rayuan melalui penghakiman yang disampaikan oleh Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid (beliau pada ketika itu) menyatakan seperti berikut; [18] The sentence passed by us reflected the intention of Parliament when it amended the period of "imprisonment for life" in section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1953 (Act 345) which was increased from twenty to thirty years vide section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2007 (Act A1302). This amendment has been in force since 7.9.2007. Hence, the sentence passed by us was with due consideration of the maximum sentence provided under subsection 39A(2) of the Act read together with the amended section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1953 which is 30 years. [11] Di dalam kes PP v. Umapathi Ganesan [2023] 9 CLJ 625, Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid HMT menyatakan seperti berikut: [30] It is noted that in amending all those other Acts of law under the Act 846 to stipulate that natural life and life imprisonment shall not be less than 30 years and not more than 40 years, the same was not done to s. 39B (2). The merits or otherwise of the legislator's decision on the matter is not the subject of this decision. Moving on, can the new provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') that now replace references to life imprisonment to be imprisonment of not less than 30 years but not more than 40 years be used as the source for the term for imprisonment for life under s. 39B (2)?. In this court's view, that cannot be done because the DDA is a special Act and the CPC is only a general Act on the conduct of criminal proceedings (see: Abdullah Atari v. PP & Other Appeals [2020] 9 CLJ 151; [2020] 6 MLJ 727, PP v. Chew Siew Luan (1982] CLJ 354; [1982] CLJ (Rep) 285; [1982] 2 MLJ 119). As expressed by the Court of Appeal in Kannan Rama (supra), s. 39(2A) which provides for imprisonment for life must be read with s. 3 of the CJA. Therefore, it must similarly apply to s. 39B (2). In the absence of an amendment to s. 3, the term of imprisonment for life therefore remains to be 30 years. The legislators must have had intended for the term of life imprisonment to remain as 30 years as defined in the CJA and not between 30 to 40 years as stipulated in all those amended provisions in the Act 846. [12] Berdasarkan kepada penjelasan di atas, adalah nyata bahawa hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman yang bijaksana ini tidak berlandaskan kepada undang-undang yang termaktub dan ini mewajarkan kami campurtangan terhadap perintah Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut bagi memperbetulkan kesilapan yang telah berlaku. Kekhilafan ini telah diakui secara jujurnya oleh beliau di dalam alasan penghakimannya. [13] Namun begitu, setelah isu kekhilafan mengenai tempoh hukuman telah kami tanggani, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya yang bijaksana memaklumkan pula kepada kami bahawa beliau telah menerima arahan untuk mengemukakan pertuduhan pindaan terhadap Responden di bawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A (2) Akta yang sama, atas representasi yang dibuat oleh Responden sebelum ini yang akhirnya diterima dan persetujui oleh Jabatan Peguam Negara, Putrajaya. Responden kemudiannya mengaku salah di atas pertuduhan pindaan tersebut. Kesimpulan [14] Kami sebulat suara membenarkan rayuan Perayu/Pendakwa Raya terhadap hukuman. [15] Hukuman pemenjaraan selama tempoh 15 tahun dari tarikh tangkap (2 Disember 2020) yang telah dijatuhkan oleh Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman yang bijaksana terhadap Responden di bawah seksyen 39B (2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 diketepikan dan digantikan dengan hukuman pemenjaraan selama tempoh sepuluh (10) tahun dari tarikh beliau ditangkap. [16] Hukuman sebatan terhadap Responden dikecualikan. Tarikh: 31 Jul 2024 - Sgd - Azmi bin Ariffin Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia Kaunsel Bagi Perayu : Mohd Fuad Bin Abdul Aziz [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya] Bagi Responden : 1) Charan Singh a/l Kartar 2) Noor Farihah binti Arshad [Tetuan Nurul, Charan & Shabnam (Ipoh)]