Procedure in summary trials The following procedure shall be observed by Magistrates in summary trials: ..... (b) 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. [15] Dalam kes PP v. JAFA BIN DAUD [1981] 1 MLJ 315, YA Hakim Azmi menerangkan konsep penghukuman seperti berikut :- “A “sentence according to law” means that the sentence must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section, but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles. In assessing sentence, one of the main factors to be considered is whether the convicted person is a first offender. It is for this purpose that before passing sentence, a Magistrate is required to call for evidence or information regarding the background, antecedent and character of the accused. Where the convicted person has previous records and admits them as correct, the court must consider whether the offence or offences committed previously were of similar nature as the one with which he is presently charged. The court must then consider the sentences imposed in the previous convictions for similar offences to determine whether they have had any deterrent effect on him. Where he is found to be a persistent offender for a similar type of offences, then it is in the interest of justice that a deterrent sentence should be passed and, in such a case, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the quantity, nature or value of the subject-matter of the offence with which he is currently charged can very rarely constitute a mitigating factor” [16] Frasa “A sentence according to law means that the sentence must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section, but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles” bermaksud Mahkamah hendaklah menjatuhkan hukuman menurut undang-undang, dan ini bukan setakat peruntukan nyata dalam undang-undang tetapi juga merangkumi prinsip perundangan yang telah diputuskan dalam kes-kes terdahulu. [17] Dalam kes yang penting iaitu LETITIA BOSMAN v. PP & OTHER APPEALS [2020] 8 CLJ 147, Mahkamah Persekutuan melalui Penghakiman YAA Hakim Besar Malaya, Tan Sri Azahar (pada ketika itu) menyebut :- “Sentencing is the final process in a criminal trial. A sentence is a final order disposing of a criminal case in court. It involves punishment, which is meted out by court to punish offenders. Those who are guilty will receive the prescribed punishment for their crime. Before the court passes sentence, a few steps are usually taken. Generally, the law does not fix a mandatory sentence for a certain offence. A maximum sentence is prescribed for the offence and the court is left to decide the appropriate sentence within the ambit of the punishment provision. In such a case, the accused will then makes a plea of mitigation, which is a submission to move the court to pass a lenient sentence. It bears noting that under the scheme of Chapter XX of CPC that governs the procedure of criminal trials in the High Court, there is no statutory requirement for mitigating factors to be considered by the court before it passes sentence according to law. Although there is no provision in the CPC for a plea in mitigation in High Court trials, nevertheless as a matter of fact, in practice it is quite common to allow a plea in mitigation before the court imposes sentence. After the accused has submitted the mitigation plea, the prosecution will submit the aggravating factors for the purpose of pressing for a heavy sentence. In passing sentence, the court takes into consideration the mitigating and aggravating factors in order to ensure that the sentence is in accordance with the law. Passing a sentence according to law means the sentence imposed must not only be within the ambit of the sentence period stipulated but also assessed and passed according to established judicial principles (see JAFA DAUD at p. 316 of the judgment of Mohamed Azmi J)’’ [18] Oleh yang demikian, jika undang-undang tidak menetapkan hukuman mandatori untuk satu kesalahan jenayah, Hakim atau Majistret itu mempunyai budibicara yang luas untuk menentukan hukuman yang sewajarnya untuk dijatuhkan terhadap pesalah. [19] Pihak pembelaan / tertuduh dan pihak pendakwaan juga boleh membantu Mahkamah dengan mengemukakan hujahan rayuan mitigasi dan pemberatan sebelum sesuatu hukuman dijatuhkan terhadap OKT. [20] Dalam kes ZAIDON SHARIFF v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1996] 4 CLJ 441, dinyatakan bahawa Mahkamah Tinggi hendaklah memberi pertimbangan yang sewajarnya kepada rayuan peringanan dimana YA Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Augustine Paul (pada ketika itu) menyatakan :- “…mitigation plea should not be treated as a ritualistic step by an accused following a conviction only to be rejected the moment it is uttered. It merits due consideration in the light of the facts of the case and, more so, when it is not contradicted by the prosecution.” [21] Selepas rayuan peringanan ini dipertimbangkan dengan faktor pemberatan barulah Mahkamah boleh menentukan apakah hukuman yang adil dan saksama pada neraca keadilan (sila rujuk RAJA IZZUDDIN SHAH v. PP [1978] 1 LNS 165; [1979] 1 MLJ 270, FU FOO TONG v. PP [1995] 1 SLR 448) Pengakuan Salah [22] Dalam kes ini, OKT telah mengaku salah atas pertuduhan tersebut. OKT juga faham sifat dan akibat pengakuan salahnya. Pengakuan salah OKT secara asasnya mewajarkan pengurangan atau diskaun atas hukuman yang bakal dikenakan atas faktor pengakuan salah OKT tersebut bukan sahaja menjimatkan masa pihak mahkamah malah Pihak Pendakwaan juga tidak perlu mengemukakan saksi-saksi Pendakwaan untuk membuktikan pertuduhan ke atas OKT. [23] Walau bagaimanapun, pengurangan hukuman atau diskaun tersebut bukanlah sesuatu yang bersifat automatik memandangkan hukuman bagi sesuatu kesalahan itu masih terletak atas budi bicara Majistret yang mendengar pertuduhan setelah menilai keseriusan kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan serta faktor-faktor lain yang menjadi aras pertimbangannya. Augustine Paul, Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan di dalam kes Bachik Abdul Rahman v. PP [2004] 2 CLJ 572; [2004] 2 MLJ 534, seperti berikut:- “One of the principles in sentencing is that a convicted person should be given a discount for pleading guilty. A reduction of about one third of the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed is normally given. This, however, is not a strict rule and the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse to grant any discount. The severity of the offence or the existence of a previous conviction may outweigh the mitigating effect of the guilty plea; so, may the demands of public interest for a deterrent sentence as well as the absence of a good defence or of other mitigating factors. The guilty plea does not automatically entitle the convict to a lesser punishment. In the instant case, the sessions judge had considered all these factors before deciding that the accused’s plea of guilty could not operate as a mitigating factor. Hence, the High Court ought not to have interfered and reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 18 years to 15 years. Nevertheless, it was not necessary for the instant court to reinstate the sentence originally imposed by the sessions judge as it would not make a material difference to the consecutive terms the accused would already have to serve.” [24] Selanjutnya, mahkamah ini merujuk kepada prinsip yang digariskan di dalam kes PP v. Kamaruzaman Mahmud & Anor [2006] 4 CLJ 792; [2007] 1 MLJ 750, di mana mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut:- “Ordinarily a plea of guilty has been treated as a mitigating factor since it saves judicial time in conducting a lengthy trial but it also saves time and inconvenience of many, particularly the witnesses (see Melvani v. PP [1971] 1 MLJ 137, Sau Soo Kim v. PP [1975] 2 MLJ 134, Loh Hock Seng & Anor v. PP [1980] 2 MLJ 13, PP v. Leo Say & 2 Ors [1985] 2 CLJ 155, Mohamed Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v. PP [1988] 1 MLJ 167, PP v. Ravindran N Rethinam & 5 Ors [1992] 4 CLJ 2043, Tan Lay Chen v. PP [2001] 1 MLJ 135). The court has recognised that a plea of guilty is ordinarily a consideration to be taken into account in mitigation of punishment but it must be made clear that it is not the law that a sentencing judge must exercise a discretion to provide a non-custodial sentence in every case of plea of guilty as each case is dealt with on its own individual merits and should not be assumed mechanically that it will be spared the custodial sentence. A plea advanced on counsel’s advice late in the day because a conviction is almost inevitable, will be given less weight than one advanced from arrest or committal, on the first day he is charged in court to save witnesses from the trauma of a trial or to reduce court delays, (see R Lawrence [1980] 1 NSWLR 122,) Laurentiu [1992] 63 A Crim R 402” [25] Maka merujuk kepada kes ini, adalah jelas Mahkamah boleh memberikan hukuman berbentuk penjara setelah Mahkamah menimbangkan faktor keseriusan jenayah yang dilakukan OKT dalam kes ini. Seperti mana yang telah dinyatakan di para 11 di atas, Kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT ini adalah sangat serius dan hukuman berat dan berbentuk penjara adalah perlu dijatuhkan bagi menunjukan keseriusan kesalahan OKT ini. [26] Jika Mahkamah tidak menjatuhkan hukuman penjara bagi kesalahan menetak orang dengan sabit seperti yang dilakukan oleh OKT ini, Mahkamah bimbang mesej yang salah akan disampaikan kepada masyarakat diluar sana yang akan menganggap kesalahan ini bukanya satu kesalahan yang serius. Mahkamah tidak mahu untuk menunjukan kepada masyarakat bahawa setiap kesalahan itu boleh diselesaikan dengan hanya membayar denda sahaja dan perkara ini akan membuka ruang kepada mereka-mereka yang mempunyai duit untuk mencederakan orang lain tanpa rasa gentar dan takut kerana mereka mampu untuk membayar denda. [27] Selain itu pertimbangan mahkamah ini dalam memutuskan hukuman bukanlah hanya semata-mata berdasarkan mitigasi dan kepentingan OKT tetapi juga kepada faktor kepentingan awam kerana secara asasnya apabila OKT telah melakukan sesuatu jenayah, kepentingan awam adalah mendahului kepentingan OKT. Kepentingan Awam [28] Mahkamah ini seterusnya mengambil kira bahawa faktor kepentingan awam yang melampaui kepentingan OKT selari dengan prinsip undang-undang berhubung pertimbangan yang perlu diambil kira oleh mahkamah ini sebelum sesuatu hukuman dijatuhkan sebagaimana yang telah digariskan di dalam kes R v. Ball (Kenneth John) [1951] 35 Cr App R 164 seperti berikut :- “In deciding the appropriate sentence, a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public 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 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 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 the 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 the right and the duty to decide whether to be lenient or severe.” [29] Berdasarkan kes ini jelas Mahkamah perlu menetukan keseriusan kes tersebut sebelum memutuskan untuk menjatuhkan hukuman yang berat atau hukuman yang rendah. Maka dalam kes ini, kerana kesalahan yang dilakukan OKT adalah serius maka hukuman yang perlu dijatuhkan adalah lebih berat berbanding kesalahan-kesalahan jenayah yang lain. [30] Malah dalam kes ini Mahkamah tidak menjatuhkan hukuman penjara maksimun 10 tahun yang diperuntukan di bawah seksyen 324 Kanun Keseksaan ini. Tempoh pemenjaraan selama 4 bulan yang dijatuhkan juga tidak sampai satu pertiga daripada tempoh hukuman penjara maksima tersebut. Perkara ini jelas menunjukan bahawa Mahkamah telah memberikan pengurangan kepada hukuman terhadap OKT ini yang mana Mahkamah percaya hukuman tersebut adalah satu hukuman yang setimpal. [31] Tambahan pula tempoh hukuman penjara yang dijatuhkan terhadap OKT ini juga tidak keterlaluan malah dalam kes-kes terdahulu terdapat hukuman penjara yang lebih tinggi pernah dikenakan terhadap OKT yang melakukan kesalahan dibawah seksyen 324 Kanun Keseksaan. Seperti dalam kes rayuan Mohamed Noor v. PP [1966] 2 MLJ 173, dimana mahkamah membuat keputusan berikut :- “Mohamed Nor appealed against a sentence of two years imprisonment for an offence under s. 324 where he used a kris, an instrument for cutting, to cause injury on a person. Abdul Aziz J (as he then was) dismissed the appeal and one of the grounds he considered was the prevalence of offences of violence of such nature in the state concerned.” [32] Dalam kes PP v. Mustapha Bin Abdullah [1996] 3 CLJ 458, Mahkamah tinggi telah menukar hukuman denda RM 2000 yang dijatuhkan oleh Majistret kepada hukuman penjara 4 bulan terhadap OKT yang dituduh dibawah seksyen 324 Kanun Keseksaan. OKT dalam kes ini juga berusia 60 tahun tetapi Mahkamah tinggi menyatakan hukuman denda adalah tidak memadai bagi kes yang melibatkan kekerasan fizikal dan menggunakan senjata berbahaya. Hakim KC Vorah menyatakan seperti berikut :- “..The respondent should have considered himself lucky because the law does not permit whipping to be imposed on him as he is above the age of 50 years. As far as this court is concerned an order of whipping would have been more than appropriate and ought to have been ordered to be imposed against the respondent if not only for the law which prevents such imposition… In order to do substantial justice in this case I have to act to enhance the manifestly inadequate sentence in this case. In all the circumstances of this case a fine is not a suitable sentence. I would reserve the maximum of 3 years for a person on a very bad case where violence with a dangerous weapon is used if the person had claimed trial and was found guilty. The accused in this case pleaded guilty and I have to take that into account when revising the sentence. I have also to consider that he is 60 years old and that he was fasting during that day in the month of Ramadhan. In all the circumstances of the case he should have been sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment instead of being fined. I set aside the fine of RM2,000 and sentence him to 4 months’ imprisonment as from today. The fine is to be refunded to him” [33] Dalam kes PP v. Yee Tham Soon [2000] 7 CLJ 519, Mahkamah Tinggi Temerloh telah menukar hukuman 1 hari Penjara dan denda RM 5000 kepada hukuman Penjara 2 tahun dan denda RM 5000 dimana mahkamah dalam kes ini menyatakan seperti berikut :- “In the appeal before this court, the learned Sessions Court Judge having found that causing serious injuries to a person is a serious offence and more so with the use of fire, failed to reflect those findings in the sentence imposed by him. Infact the learned Sessions Court Judge seemed to have excessively leaned towards the respondent and had failed to direct his mind that the paramount consideration in assessing the appropriate sentence is public interest. It is not the view of this court that the learned Sessions Court Judge ought to wholly reflect public opinion but he must at least not be indifferent or disregard it, and must at least make expressly clear that in the light of the appalling increase in crimes involving violence the courts should not tolerate such offenders and instead protect the victims and the society as a whole and who should not be made to live in fear so as to prevent them from going through the streets for fear of being attacked for no reason whatsoever.” [34] Juga di dalam kes PP v. Wong Soon Chon [2014] 1 LNS 1423, dimana OKT dalam kes ini dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 30 bulan dari tarikh tangkap dan 2 sebatan rotan dimana dalam kes ini OKT telah didapati bersalah dan disabitkan kesalahan mencederakan mangsa menggunakan parang. [36] Maka berdasarkan kesemua kes-kes yang melibatkan kekerasan fizikal yang telah ditunjukan diatas, Mahkamah lebih cenderung untuk memberikan hukuman berbentuk pemenjaraan kerana keseriusan jenayah yang dilakukan oleh OKT. Mencederakan orang lain secara fizikal adalah satu jenayah yang serius apatah lagi dalam kes ini senjata yang digunakan bukanya senjata tumpul seperti kayu tetapi senjata tajam iaitu sebilah sabit. [37] Mahkamah juga percaya keadilan perlu diberikan kepada mangsa kerana mangsa dalam kes ini telah mengalami kesakitan yang teruk apabila kepala, leher dan bahunya ditetak oleh OKT dengan sabit. Kesakitan yang dialami oleh mangsa ini perlu ditanggung oleh mangsa sendiri serta mungkin menghadapi trauma atas perbuatan OKT. Mahkamah tidak dapat membayangkan betapa sakitnya mangsa ketika ditetak oleh OKT ini berkali-kali sehingga mangsa jatuh tidak sedarkan diri pada waktu kejadian. [38] Mahkamah juga percaya OKT bernasib baik kerana tidak boleh dikenakan hukuman sebat atas alasan beliau telah berusia lebih 60 tahun. Jika tidak Mahkamah percaya hukuman sebat juga wajar dikenakan terhadap OKT ini bagi memberi pengajaran dan memberikan OKT pengalaman merasai kesakitan dicederakan secara fizikal. Walaupun Mahkamah percaya kesakitan tetakan sabit di kepala, leher dan bahu yang dialami mangsa adalah lebih sakit berbanding dengan sebatan rotan, sekurang-kurangnya Mahkamah ini percaya perkara tersebut dapat memberikan pengajaran kepada OKT dan juga amaran kepada masyarakat diluar sana untuk tidak mengambil mudah kesalahan serius seperti ini. [39] Hukuman yang diputuskan oleh mahkamah ini adalah suatu hukuman munasabah, setimpal dan adil sebagai suatu bentuk pengajaran kepada OKT secara khusus dan juga sebagai satu bentuk amaran kepada masyarakat diluar sana supaya tidak melakukan kesalahan jenayah seperti ini di masa hadapan. Mahkamah juga mengambil judicial notice bahawa kesalahan jenayah yang melibatkan kecederan fizikal seperti ini semakin berleluasa (rampant) dan sangat membimbangkan seperti mana yang telah dilaporkan di dada akhbar. Oleh itu, Mahkamah percaya kesalahan jenayah fizikal seperti ini perlu dijatuhkan hukuman yang lebih berat bagi menunjukan bahawa Mahkamah mengambil serius berkenaan keadaan semasa pada hari ini. Kesimpulan [40] Dalam kes ini juga mahkamah tidak terus mengabaikan kepentingan OKT. Kaedah yang digunakan oleh mahkamah adalah membuat imbangan di antara kepentingan awam dan kepentingan OKT sebelum menentukan hukuman yang berpatutan. Rujukan selanjutnya di dalam kes PP v. Md Rashid Harun [2000] 3 CLJ 832 yang menggariskan prinsip seperti berikut :- “…The sentence must be one appropriate to the gravity of the offence… Accordingly, the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence… Mitigating factors are not to be disregarded, even if the offence calls for a deterrent sentence. That is not to say though, that the circumstances of the individual offender are more important than the protection of innocent members of the community from injury to their persons, or from risk even to their lives. Public interest must not be relegated to the background. The correct approach is to strike a balance, so far as possible, between the interest of the public and the interest of the accused.” [41] Oleh itu, atas imbangan dan pertimbangan faktor-faktor yang dinyatakan di atas, keputusan mahkamah ini yang memutuskan OKT dihukum penjara selama 4 bulan yang bermula dari tarikh tangkap dan denda RM 2000 bagi pertuduhan tersebut adalah setimpal, wajar dan selari dengan peruntukan undang-undang serta prinsip-prinsip dalam menjatuhkan hukuman. [42] OKT juga telah memohon pengantungan pelaksanaan bagi hukuman penjara tersebut dan telah dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah ini sementara menunggu keputusan rayuan. Bertarikh : 25 Mac 2024