1/18/2015

Case:[1976]1LNS102

[1976]1LNS102
[1976]2MLJ256

PUBLICPROSECUTORv.LOOCHOONFATT
HIGHCOURT,IPOH
HASHIMYEOPASANIJ
PERAKCRIMINALREVISIONNO.6OF1976
29JANUARY1976

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE Sentence Offence of Possession of dangerous Drugs

FactorstobetakenintoconsiderationinassessingsentencePublicinterestWhetherprovisionfor
bindingoverunders294CriminalProcedureCodeapplicableCriminalProcedureCode(FMSCap
6),ss173Aand294
DANGEROUSDRUGSPossessionSentence
Case(s)referredto:
HengkimKhoonv.PP[1972]1MLJ30
PublicProsecutorv.Idris[1955]1LNS93,235
PublicProsecutorv.TanEngHock[1969]1LNS140
ReBadribinAbas[1970]1LNS133
ReEngChongLam[1963]1LNS110
Rexv.Grondkowski[1946]1AllER560,561
Rexv.KennethJohnBall35Cr.App.R164
Legislationreferredto:
CriminalProcedureCode,ss.173A,294
DangerousDrugsAct,s.39A
DangerousDrugsOrdinance,s.12(2)
Counsel:
FortheapplicantWanAbdulMajidbinWanHamid(DPP)
FortherespondentParamjitSingh

JUDGMENT
HashimYeopASaniJ(deliveringoraljudgment):
Thefactsofthecasearethaton20May1975atabout11.20a.m.aPoliceconstable,PC58206,
arrestedtheaccusedinKampongJawa,Ipoh,andfromhispersonwererecovered13plastictubes
containing3gofwhatwassuspectedtobeheroin.Theaccusedwasreleasedonbailthefollowing
day.Thechemist'sreporttenderedintheSessionsCourt,Ipoh,on25November1975showedonly
1.2gofheroincontainedin13plastictubes.TheSpecialPresidentamendedtheoriginalchargeasto
theamountofheroinalthoughthisisnotreflectedinthecertifiedcopybeforetheCourt.Theaccused
pleadedguiltytotheoffence.Inhismitigationtheaccusedstatedthatthiswashisfirstoffenceand
that he was threatened that if he did not sell the drugs he would be assaulted. The accused was
boundoverunders.294oftheCriminalProcedureCodeforoneyearinthesumof$750withone
surety.Theaccused'smotherstoodonsurety.
The only point raised by Mr. Paramjit Singh worth considering is whether the Special President
shouldhaverejectedthepleaofguiltybecausetheaccusedstated"thathewouldbeassaulted"ifhe
http://www.cljlaw.com.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=2060327425&SearchId=2maralib1

1/4

1/18/2015

Case:[1976]1LNS102

didnotsellthedrugs.HengKimKhoonv.PP[1972]1MLJ30
was cited as an example where the Judge in exercising his revisionary powers ordered a retrial
becausetheaccusedhadpleadedguiltyunderanerroneousviewofthelaw.Butitshouldbenoted
thatthatcaseandtheotherEnglishcasescitedthereinconcernedapleainmitigationwhichaffected
anessentialingredientoftheoffenceandthattheexplanationoftheaccuseddisclosesnooffencein
law. This is not the case here. I have also examined the records and there is nothing therein to
indicateanyirregularity.Whatisleftthereforeisthequestionofsentence.
In respect of sentencing there can be only general guidelines. No two cases can have exactly the
samefactstotheminutestdetail.Factsdodifferfromcasetocaseandultimatelyeachcasehastobe
decided on its own merits. In practice sentences do differ not only from case to case but also from
Court to Court. All things being equal these variations are inevitable if only because of the human
elementinvolved.But,ofcourse,theremustbelimitstopermissiblevariations.
The principles to be applied in imposing sentence however are the same in every case. The High
Court sitting in exercise of its revisionary powers will not normally alter the sentence unless it is
satisfiedthatthesentenceofthelowerCourtiseithermanifestlyinadequateorgrosslyexcessiveor
illegalorotherwisenotapropersentencehavingregardtoallthefactsdisclosedontherecordorto
allthefactswhichtheCourtoughttotakejudicialnoticeof,thatistosay,thatthelowerCourtclearly
haserredinapplyingthecorrectprinciplesintheassessmentofthesentence.Itisafirmlyestablished
practice that the Court will not alter a sentence merely because it might have passed a different
sentence.
In respect of offences under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, 1952, there has been a gradual
changeintheattitudeofthelegislatureduringthelastfewyears.TheOrdinancehasbeenamended
byParliamentanumberoftimes,in1971(byActA112of1972)thenin1973(byActA194of1973)
and then in 1975 (by Act A293 of 1975). At the moment there is yet another amendment which is
awaiting the Royal Assent. In the legislative exercise in 1973 penalties attached to the various
offencesunderthelawwereenhanced.Fortheoffenceofpossessionofanydangerousdrugsunder
s.12(2)oftheOrdinance,forexample,thepenaltywasincreasedfromamaximumof$10,000fineto
amaximumof$20,000fineandthemaximumimprisonmentwasincreasedfromthreeyearstofive
years. In the legislative exercise in 1975, among other things, a new provision (new s. 39A) was
insertedwherebyitisprovidedthatwhoeverisconvictedofanoffenceundertheOrdinanceandthe
subject matter of which is heroin or morphine of five grammes or more in weight shall be liable to
imprisonment (with no option of a fine) for a term not exceeding fourteen years and not less than
threeyearsandheshallalsobeliabletowhippingofnotlessthansixstrokes.AccordingtotheBill
whichisatthemomentawaitingtheRoyalAssentanothernewprovisionisinsertedcreatinganew
offence of planting or cultivating any plant from which raw opium, coca leaves, poppystraw or
cannabismaybeobtained.Thepunishmentforthenewoffenceislifeimprisonmentandwhipping.
It is common sense to say that behind these legislative exercises was the government's realisation
albeitgradual,oftheproblemofdrugabuseinthiscountry,thedegeneratingeffectofthemisuseof
dangerousdrugsandtheattendantdangersithasposedtosocietyitself.Theamendmentspassedby
Parliamentthereforereflectthepublicpolicy.Itmustbepresumedthatbehindthepublicpolicyisthe
considerationofpublicinterest.
Thechangeintheattitudeofthelegislatureitselfduringthelastthreeyearsreflectstheseriousness
oftheproblem.InmyviewtheCourtswillnotbeperformingtheirfunctionshonestlyiftheseriousness
ofthesituationisnotreflectedinthesentenceimposedorifthesentenceappearstodefeattheobject
ofthestatute.ThisisnotsayingthattheCourtsinthetreatmentofdrugoffencesshouldatalltimes
besevere.Eachcasehastobedeterminedonitsownmerits.ButineverycasetheCourtsmustbe
realisticandrational.
One of the main considerations in the assessment of sentence is of course the question of public
interest.OnthispointIneedonlyquoteapassagefromthejudgmentofHilberyJinRexv.Kenneth
JohnBall35Cr.App.R164asfollows:
IndecidingtheappropriatesentenceaCourtshouldalwaysbeguidedbycertainconsiderations.
Thefirstandforemostisthepublicinterest.Thecriminallawispubliclyenforced,notonlywith
theobjectofpunishingcrime,butalsointhehopeofpreventingit.Apropersentence,passedin
public,servesthepublicinterestintwoways.Itmaydeterotherswhomightbetemptedtotry
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
honestlife.Thepublicinterestisindeedserved,andbestserved,iftheoffenderisinducedtoturn
http://www.cljlaw.com.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=2060327425&SearchId=2maralib1

2/4

1/18/2015

Case:[1976]1LNS102

fromcriminalwaystohonestliving.Ourlawdoesnot,therefore,fixthesentenceforaparticular
crime, but fixes a maximum sentence and leaves to the Court to decide what is, within that
maximum, the appropriate sentence for each criminal in the particular circumstances of each
case.Notonlyinregardtoeachcrime,butinregardtoeachcriminal,theCourthastherightand
thedutytodecidewhethertobelenientorsevere.
Presidents and Magistrates are often inclined quite naturally to be oversympathetic to the accused.
Thisisanormalpsychologicalreactiontothesituationinwhichthelonelyaccusedisseenfacingan
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
Courts might perhaps find it difficult to decide as to what sentence should be imposed so that the
convictedpersonmaynotbefurtherburdenedwithadditionalhardship.Thisinmyviewisawrong
approach.Thecorrectapproachistostrikeabalance,asfaraspossible,betweentheinterestsofthe
public and the interests of the accused. Lord Goddard LCJ in Rex v. Grondkowski [1946] 1 All ER
560,561offeredsomegoodadvicewhenhesaid:
TheJudgemustconsidertheinterestsofjusticeaswellastheinterestsoftheprisoners.Itistoo
often nowadays thought, or seems to be thought that the interests of justice means only the
interestsoftheprisoners.
Comingbacktotheinstantcase,theCourtbelowthoughtitfitthattheaccusedbeboundoverunder
s.294oftheCriminalProcedureCode.Itwouldseemtomequiteclearthatonthetermsofs.294of
theCriminalProcedureCodethediscretiontoorderabondunderthatsectioncannotbeappliedto
anoffenceunders.12(2)oftheDangerousDrugsOrdinance,1952becausethereisanalternative
punishment of either a fine or imprisonment provided in that section. The two primary prerequisites
which must be satisfied first before the Court can proceed to consider whether to exercise its
discretiontoorderabondunders.294oftheCriminalProcedureCodearethat(1)theaccusedis
notayouthfuloffenderand(2)hehasbeenconvictedofanoffencepunishablewithimprisonment.
Thedistinctionbetweens.294ands.173AoftheCriminalProcedureCodewasmadealongtime
agoinPublicProsecutorv.Idris[1955]1LNS93,235byThomsonJ(ashethenwas)andwhich
wasreiteratedinthejudgmentofGillJ(ashethenwas)ReEngChongLam[1963]1LNS110.The
questionnowisshouldtheorderofbindingoveroftheaccusedherebesubstitutedbyasimilarorder
unders.173AoftheCriminalProcedureCodebecauseheisafirstoffenderorayouthfuloffenderor
thathesaidhewas"forced"tocommittheoffence?Havingregardtothenatureoftheoffence,the
circumstancesofthecaseandthemitigationoftheaccusedandtheprobationreportIthinknot.
Thetypesofcasesandthesetofcircumstanceswheres.173AoftheCriminalProcedureCodecan
appropriatelybeappliedarebynomeansexhaustive.InadditiontowhathasbeensaidinPPv.Tan
EngHock[1970]2MLJ15andReBadriBinAbas[1970]1LNS133,203astowhenitwouldbe
appropriate to exercise the discretion under that section I would say that in respect of offences for
possessionofdrugsinrelativelysmallquantitiestheCourtoughtalsotoconsider
(1)whethertheCourtisoftheopinionthattheaccusedisanaddictandinneedofrehabilitation
sincetheobjectofpunishmentistwofold,i.e.topreventothersfromfollowingtheexampleandat
thesametimetoreformtheaccused
(2)whetheranyperson(inthecaseofanaccusedwhoisayoungoffenderwhetheranyofhis
parentsorguardian)hascomeforwardtotheCourtwillingandabletoundertaketorehabilitate
himand
(3)whetherthecommissionofsuchoffenceisnotrampantandthatadeterrentpunishmentisnot
reallycalledfor.
Needless to say, the Court should not simply jump at exercising the powers under s. 173A of the
CriminalProcedureCodesimplybecausetheaccusedisayouthfuloffenderandhesaysheregrets
whathehasdone.Itwouldbeuseful,Ithink,ifIrepeatherewhatwassaidbythelateSharmaJRe
BadribinAbas(withwhichIwholeheartedlyagree)asawordofcautionontheexerciseofdiscretion
under s. 173A of the Criminal Procedure Code in that an exercise of discretion under this section
requiresaconsiderablesenseofresponsibilityandCourtsshouldnotallowthemselvestobemisled
intoapplyingthissectionbyanymisplacedsenseofleniencyorsympathy.Thatsectionisnotmeant
tobeappliedindiscriminatelytoallfirstoffenderswhosaytheyregretwhattheyhavedoneandask
forleniency.
Inthepresentcaseaccordingtotheprobationreporttheaccusedisanonlysonwhowillbe21years
oldinlessthantwomonthstime.Hismotherhadbeenseparatedfromhisfather.Theaccusedand
hismotherhavebeenlivinginaslumareainfestedwith"gangsters"and"drugaddicts."Atthetime
theprobationreportwaswrittentheaccusedwasapainterearning$6adayandthemotherwasa
http://www.cljlaw.com.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=2060327425&SearchId=2maralib1

3/4

1/18/2015

Case:[1976]1LNS102

maidservantearningabout$60permonth.
Havingregardtothebackgroundreportontheaccusedandhispleainmitigationthathewasinfact
peddlingdrugsalthoughhesaidhewasforcedtodoso,Iconsiderthattheordertobindhimover
withhismotherasthesuretyisclearlyandmanifestlyinadequatenotonlyconsideringthenatureof
theoffenceandthecircumstancesunderwhichitwascommittedbutalsoconsideringthatsuchbond
isineffectiveunderthecircumstancesasanassuranceoffuturegoodconduct.Ifanordertobindover
theaccusedhereisnotappropriateeitherunders.173Aors.294oftheCriminalProcedureCode
whatisthenthepropersentencetobepassedonhim?LawtonLJinReJamesHenrySargeantatp.
77 referred to the classical principles of sentencing, namely, retribution, deterrence, prevention and
rehabilitation,andsaidthattheCourtoughtalwaystohavethesefourclassicalprinciplesinmindand
applythemtothefactsofthecasetoseewhichofthemhasthegreatestimportanceinthecase.On
retributionLawtonLJsaid:
TheOldTestamentconceptofaneyeforaneyeandtoothfortoothnolongerplaysanypartin
ourcriminallaw.Thereis,however,anotheraspectofretributionwhichisfrequentlyoverlooked
itisthatsociety,throughtheCourts,mustshowitsabhorrenceofparticulartypesofcrimeand
theonlywayinwhichtheCourtscanshowthisisbythesentencestheypass.TheCourtsdonot
havetoreflectpublicopinion.OntheotherhandCourtsmustnotdisregardit.Perhapsthemain
dutyoftheCourtistoleadpublicopinion.
Consideringthebackgroundoftheaccusedintheinstantcasefininghimwouldalsobeineffectiveas
also a long prison sentence would be inappropriate. Therefore it is my considered view that in this
caseasentenceofimprisonmentofsixmonthswillbeappropriateinthehopethat"hismemoryofthe
clanging of prison gates," will keep him from this crime in the future. The sentence of the Special
Presidentisaccordinglysubstituted.Orderaccordingly.
[1976]2MLJ256

Disclaimer|PrivacyPolicy|TermsofTrade|Terms&ConditionsofUse|LicenceAgreement
|FAQ|Sitemap
Copyright2015CLJLegalNetworkSdnBhd.
Email:enquiries@cljlaw.comTel:60342705421Fax:60342705402

http://www.cljlaw.com.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=2060327425&SearchId=2maralib1

4/4