Aggravating Factors (Faktor Pemberatan)

-Consecutive (at expiry of other sentence)

/Concurrent sentence (same)
- S173(m)(ii) where the accused is found

amount and quantity of the drugs found in

his possession. S294 CPC applied -> Sentece
3 years imprisonment.
*Bond is court discretion to give*

guilty

iv) PP v Tan Eng Hock (1970) 2 MLJ 15

-Strike a balance AFAP between the interests

- Car theft case -> court imposed higher

of the public and the interests of the

sentence considering the rampancy -> 18

accused.

months imprisonment

- A plea of guilt does not always entitle an

v) PP v Lee Tak Keong (1989) 1 MLJ 307

accused to a discount as a matter or right.

- Gang robbery case -> Sentence 2 years

imprisonemnet and pay RM50 compensation

A) Prevalence or rampancy of offence

When there is rampant -> The sentence will

to victims. On appeal, get 5 years

imprisonment, 6 strokes and RM50 still need
to pay. (Public interest element considered)

be heavier

vi) Cheong Ah Cheow v PP (1985)

i) Lee Chow Meng v PP (1976) 1 MLJ 287

- Case of betting (judi haram) -> 18months

- Arm Robbery, Possession of arms and

possession of ammunition. -> 7 years
imprisonment and 5 strikes together with 10
years imprisonment and six storkes
consecutively -> COA: Sentences run

imprisonment + Fine of 20K if default 12

months imprisonment + Money found on
accused were forfeit. -> Appeal, 18 months
and money forfeit confirm. However, period of
default paying fine reduced to six months.

consecutively was justified

ii) PP v Teh Ah Cheng (1976)

B) Previous Convictions or Bad Record

- Respondent was 18years 5months at the

- Show that accused is unwilling or is in

time he committed the offences

->3 years for each charges (2 charges)
concurrently -> Unlawful possession of
firearms and possession of ammunition
-> Court give strict sentence regardless of
young age as he he does so unlawfully then
he is certainly not too young to suffer the

incapable of complying with the law.

i) PP v Jafa Bin Daud (1981)
- Giving 8 month imprisonment for
possessing 0.21g -> 5 previous convictions (2
involving drugs) -> On appeal get 18 month
imprisonment

penalites therefor prescribed by law.

ii) Soosainathan v PP (2001) 2 MLJ 377

iii) PP v Yeoh Eng Khuan (1976) 1 MLJ

- Possession of 0.07g drugs and failure to

230

produce IC -> Court do not look at the bad

- Drug case 4.86g Heroin+0.93g Herion->

of weapon, armed robbery and possession of

Court give bond -> Appeal found that

respondent may be a pusher consider the

record (3 previous convictions possession

heroin) as it is new case that are not serious

offence. Court view the gap between

month imprisonment + RM2K if default 2

conviction as mitigating factor rather than

months imprisonment further.

aggravating factor -> Held: RM1,500 fine in

default 3 months imprisonment + 2nd charge
remain (fine RM300 in default 3 months
imprisonment)

-> On appeal, fine RM2K was set aside as the

sentence cant be justify . As the offences are
serious and as examples for police to abide
the law during services + the political
situation worse
v) Mohd Khir Toyo v PP (2013) 5 CLJ 323
-Charge under s165 PC. 12 months
imprisonment and property forfeited to the

C) Position or status of offender

gov. -> Appeal dismissed as the offences are

i) Datuk Harun Idris v PP (1978) 1 MLJ

240

serious and his status as Selangor MB +

Pengerusi PKNS this is aggravating factors

-Appeal against 3 charges (Forgery, CBT,

vi) PP v Lim Kit Siang

abetment)

-Charges with 5 charges under OSA

- Court in enhancing the sentences was not

-> Privilege of MP can only be invoked in

influenced by the fact that the three accused

persons would lose their jobs. It would
aggravate the sentence of offence. -> 1st

respect of proceedings in Parliament and not

outside the House.

appellant was principal actor -> Increased to

-> The charges had been proved beyond

4 years for 1 charge + 3 years for 2

reasonable doubt and he has not raised any

st

nd

charge

run concurrently

defence sustainable in law and in fact.

ii) PP v Datuk Tan Cheng Swee & Anor

-> Sentence

(1980)

1st Charge Fine $5K id 1 year prison

-Commissioner of Malacca Municipal ity

2nd Charge Fine $1K id 2 months prison

Council -> RM2,000 on each charge.

*High position Court will not give chances
but they will use it as leverages against you.*
iii) PP v Tan Koon Swan (1987)
-Charge of abetting committing CBT -> 2

3rd 5th Charge Fine $3K each id 9 months

prison
Position as MP and Opposition leader
vii) Mark Koding v PP

years imprisonment and fine of $500K

-Charge under s4(1)(b) Sedition Act Bond

default payment will 6 months imprisonment

for 2 years in the sum of $2,000 to be of

iv) Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Bin Mohd Noor v

PP (2001) 1 MLJ 193
-Ketua Polis Negara - Case tumbuk Anwar
sebab Anwar sebut Ni Bapa Anjing -> 2

good behaviour under s173A CPC without

recording a conviction.
- The amendment limiting MP right of free
speech in Parliament are valid.
D) Use of Force

i) PP v Safian Bin Abdullah & Anor

(1983) 1 CLJ 324

i) Joginder Singh v PP (1984) 2 MLJ 133

- A very wicked person -> Giving false

- A more severe sentence will be justified

evidence -> 2 years imprisonment, as four

even where the offenders were very young.

innocent persons might have been convicted

E) Mode of committing offences

for jail, thus the method should be

aggravating factor for passing the sentence

- If brutal -> Heavy Sentence

Curing Section

- Where offences are carefully planned and

-If there are mistake in the charge

executed, a deterrent sentence may be

appropriate \/

- s422 CPC