DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM DI DALAM KES BICARA JENAYAH NO: 45SO-21-10/2016 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND AMINUDIN BIN MUSA (I/C. NO: 760521-03-5519) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A. BACKGROUND [1] The Accused/Respondent was charged for transporting migrants who were smuggled into the country, an offence under section 26J of the Anti- Trafficking of Persons and Anti Smuggling of Migrant Act 2007 (ATIPSOM) ( The Act ). [2] After the charge was read and explained to the Accused/Respondent and after having understood the charge, the Accused/Respondent pleaded guilty. After he was explained of the consequences of his plea and understood them, the accused maintained his plea of guilty. 1
[3] After the facts of the case were read and explained and after having understood them, the accused admitted to those facts, the court thereafter convicted him. [4] Upon hearing submissions from both parties, this court sentenced him to 2 years and 5 months imprisonment from the date of arrest. As the car did not belong to him, this court did not make any order as to the forfeiture of the car. [5] Dissatisfied, the Public Prosecutor/Appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. These are the grounds for the decision. B. THE CHARGE [6] The charge reads as follows: Bahawa kamu pada 8/8/2016 jam lebih kurang 06.05 pagi, bertempat di hadapan Masjid Kg. Lemal, di dalam Daerah Pasir Mas, di dalam Negeri Kelantan, didapati telah mengangkut 06 orang migran warganegara Myanmar yang diseludup iaitu penama (1) Kyaw Htet, (2) Moe Htet, (3) Salai Phone, (4) Kyaw Naing, (5) Aung Than dan (6) Tin Maung dengan menggunakan kereta jenis Proton Saga warna hijau, nombor pendaftaran NAA 6615. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 26J Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Orang dan Anti Penyeludupan Migran 2007 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen yang sama. 2
C. THE FACTS OF THE CASE [7] The facts of the case can be gleaned from the ground of judgment of the trial judge which extracts are reproduced below: 1) Pada 08/08/2016 jam lebih kurang 6.05 pagi, pengadu RF 133081 Norazuaman bin Mohd Lazim bersama anggota semasa bertugas menjalankan Risikan dan Pemantauan Ops Penguatkuasaan Risikan Sempadan Malaysia-Thailand (Kelantan) telah mengekori sebuah motorkar jenis Proton Saga nombor pendaftaran NAA 6615 warna hijau dari Jalan Tanah Merah-Pasir Mas Kelantan. 2) Setibanya di hadapan Masjid Kg Lemal. Pasir Mas, Kelantan, kereta Proton Saga tersebut telah memberhentikan keretanya. Pengadu nampak 2 lelaki warga asing sedang berada di tepi jalan. Pemandu iaitu 1 lelaki Melayu telah keluar dari kereta tersebut dan membuka bonet keretanya untuk memasukkan beg yang diambil daripada 2 lelaki warga asing tadi. 3) Semasa itu, Kpl Ismail telah menahan kereta tersebut dan pengadu block di belakang kereta tersebut. Pengadu dan anggota yang lain keluar dari kereta dan menuju ke arah lelaki tersebut. Pengadu mengeluarkan kad kuasa dan memperkenalkan diri polis. Kpl Ismail telah memegang tangan untuk digari tangan lelaki terebut, tetapi dia cuba melarikan diri, melawan dan telah menumbuk muka Kpl Ismail. Kemudian 3
dibantu oleh L/Kpl Fadli, Nazuan dan Akmal berjaya menangkap lelaki Melayu tersebut. Pemeriksaan dapati nama pemandu motorkar tersebut adalah Aminuddin bin Musa (Tertuduh), No KP: 760521-03-5519). 4) Pengadu tangkap (2) lelaki warga asing yang berada di luar kereta. Kemudian pemeriksaan lanjut dibuat di dalam motorkar tersebut mendapati terdapat (4) lelaki warganegara asing. Hasil semakan mendapati kesemua mereka tiada memiliki sebarang dokumen perjalanan yang sah. Kesemua 6 warga asing adalah seperti berikut:- 4.1 Kyaw Htet, 31 thn, Lelaki, Myanmar. 4.2 Moe Htet, 19 thn, Lelaki, Myanmar. 4.3 Salai Phone, 25 thn, Lelaki, Myanmar. 4.4 Kyaw Naing, 33 thn, Lelaki, Myanmar. 4.5 Aung Than, 24 thn, Lelaki, Myanmar. 4.6 Tin Maung, 41 thn, Lelaki, Myanmar 5) Pengadu telah menahan pemandu dan kesemua warga asing Myanmar dan telah merampas sebuah kereta Proton Saga NAA 6615. D. PLEA IN MITIGATION BY THE ACCUSED [8] The learned counsel for the Accused/Respondent submitted that the Accused/Respondent was 41 years old and a bachelor at the time of his arrest. 4
[9] The Accused/Respondent has 6 siblings including himself of whom 2 are still small and schooling. Both of them were being taken care of by him since their parents death. [10] The counsel further submitted that the Accused/Respondent is a first offender for this offence and that the guilty plea at the first instance had saved the court s time and that he had repented and remorseful. [11] The Accused/Respondent had also given full cooperation to the authorities whilst under investigation. [12] Regarding the car, the learned counsel submitted that it was not his as it was not registered under his name. E. SUBMISSION BY THE PROSECUTION [13] The learned DPP submitted that this is a serious offence, and that public interest warrants that the sentence imposed should reflect the seriousness of the offence accordingly. [14] Further, submitted the learned DPP, it involved the security of the country as the Accused/Respondent had contributed to the influx of smuggled migrants into the country, and that Malaysia is now ranked in the third tier of the United Nation s Watch List in so far as trafficking in persons are concerned. 5
[15] The learned DPP further confirmed that he is a first offender and that the car used was not his and that it was registered under the mother s name. F. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT [16] The offending and the sentencing provision is fused in a single provision and is reproduced below which reads: Offence of conveyance of smuggled migrants 26J: Any person being the owner, operator or master of any conveyance who engages in the conveyance of smuggled migrants commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand ringgit, or to both. [17] It is patently clear from the provision, that the maximum sentence that this court can impose will be 5 years imprisonment. In so far as fine is concerned, it is not mandatory, because of the word shall also be liable. (See the Federal Court case of Jayanathan v PP (infra); Goh Kheng Seong v PP (infra) and PP v Man Bin Ismail (1939) MLJ 207. [18] It is trite that whilst the court has a wide discretion in imposing sentence, the court is guided by certain sentencing principles of which public interest is of paramount importance and should superceede the 6
personal interest of the Accused/Respondent. [see R v Ball (25 CR) APPR 164] and [PP v Loo Choon Fatt (1976) 2 MLJ 256]. Hence the court cannot willy nilly embark on some unauthorized or extraneous exercise of discretion before meting out the sentence. [19] This court had considered the public interest element in this case in the sense that the sentence imposed should be deterrent in nature as this offence involved the security and also the reputation of the country as Malaysia is now ranked in the third tier of the United Nation Watch List on human trafficking. [20] This court on the other hand, did not disregard the rights of the Accused/Respondent i.e. to have his personal interest considered by this court as well (see Tan Sri Abdul Rahim bin Mohd Noor v PP (2001) 1 MLJ 193. There are circumstances in which public interest itself warrants that the Accused should not be put behind bars for far too long as that will do more harm than good as it might cause a crushing effect on him, and could turn him into a hardened criminal. [21] Hence a sentence that should be imposed should be one that could induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. In the words of Hashim Yeop Sani, High Court Judge Malaya as he then was in the case of Loo Choo Fatt (supra) who said: The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living. 7
[22] Hence this court needs to strike a balance in order to do justice to the Accused/Respondent and to the public. Towards that end, this court had embarked on a balancing exercise, balancing the public interest with that of the fact that the Accused/Respondent had repented and remorseful, had promised to turn over a new leaf upon completing his time in prison, and that he had been supporting his 2 young siblings who are school going children after their parents death, amongst others. After embarking on a balancing exercise this court ruled that, in so far as the circumstances of this case were concerned, public interest will be best served by imposing a sentence of 2 years and 5 months, effective from the date of arrest. [23] This court had also considered that the Accused/Respondent had pleaded guilty at the first instance. There are a plethora of authorities to suggest that this factor should also be considered as much public time and money will be spared if an accused person admits his guilt, thus avoiding a prolonged and unnecessary trial [PP Vs Ravindran and Others (1992) 1 LNS 47] and Sau Soon Kim Vs PP (1975) 2 MLJ 134]. [24] The Accused/Respondent is not a habitual criminal as the learned DPP confirmed that this was his first offence. It is an established principle of law of sentencing that a first offender should be given some leniency, save where the offence committed, even though for the first time, were so serious that there was no reason or basis to give concession to this fact. Cases that fall into this category are for example, heneious crimes like taking away one s life, armed robbery where victim was shot, grevious hurt or having in possession of dangerous drugs in extraordinary large quantity [see PP Vs Tia Ah Leng (infra)]. 8
[25] Nothing of this sort happened in this case. [26] This court also had followed the sentencing trend of this type of offence under the Act. Admittedly there is a dearth of reported cases on sentencing especially under this section. However, for the more serious case of trafficking in persons by means of force or threat pursuant to section 13 this Act, the courts had sentenced offenders between 7 and 8 years imprisonment after a full trial as can be seen in the case of Kwong Tuck Choy & Anor v PP (2013) 1 LNS 1440 and Chang Choi v PP (2013) 7 CLJ 166 respectively. The offence under section 13 carries the maximum prison sentence of 20 years with a minimum prison sentence of 3 years. Whereas the prison sentence for the offence at hand (i.e. sect 26J) is a maximum of 5 years only. [27] As a guide, in the case of Mohd Karim Bujang v PP (2014) 2 CLJ 755, the High Court affirmed the sentence of 2 years imprisonment imposed by the Session s Court upon conviction after a full trial. In PP v Ngan Chea (2015) 1 LNS 711, the High Court imposed only a fine upon conviction after a full trial. [28] Even in the case of PP v Rahman Mojibur (2016) 1 LNS 290 where the accused was charged under section 26H of the Act (concealing or harboring smuggled migrants) which carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years, the High Court imposed a prison sentence of only 2 years. [29] Further it is not uncommon for the court to use a mechanism or a formula of giving half of the maximum prison sentence allowed or a 9
discount of about 1/4 or 1/3 of the imprisonment sentence that would have been imposed had the accused been found guilty and convicted after a full trial. (see Mohamad Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v PP (1988) 1 MLJ 168. [30] Hence, based on the reasonings above, this court found that the appropriate sentence should be 2 years and 5 months imprisonment which was about half of the maximum imprisonment allowed. [31] In so far as the conveyance used in the commission of the crime was concerned, i.e. the car with the registration number NAA 6615, no order for forfeiture under section 36 of the Act was given, primarily because there was no iota of evidence to show that the car was his. [32] Section 36 of the Act reads as follows: (1) All conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document, or any human organ seized in the exercise of any power conferred under this Act are liable to forfeiture. (2) The Court trying any person accused of an offence under this Act may at the conclusion of the trial, whether he is convicted or not, order that the conveyance, moveable property, book, record, report or document or any human organ seized from that person be forfeited. [33] This court noted that the word liable to forfeiture was employed in sub section (1) to section 36, and the word may, at the conclusion of the 10
trial was employed in subsection (2) to section 36 of the Act. It is trite that the words may or liable to denote that the provisions are not mandatory but discretionary or directory in nature, as affirmed in cases like Jayanathan v PP (1973) 2 MLJ 68; Darus v PP (1964) MLJ 322; Mahrus v PP (1992) 1 MLJ 561; Goh Kheng Seong v PP (1993) 1 MLJ 103 and PP v Man Bin Ismail (1939) MLJ 161. Hence a discretion is given to this court as to whether to adhere to that requirement or otherwise. [34] In exercising this court s discretion not to order forfeiture of the car in question, this court took into consideration that the car was not registered under the accused s name but under the mother s. To put it in another fashion, the car did not belong to him. [35] Further, this court was of the considered opinion that the car can be best utilized by other members of the family especially the other elder siblings who are to relieve the accused of taking care of the 2 young siblings i.e. transporting them to and from school and also for the usage of other members of the family for their daily chores, during the Accused s absence. G. CONCLUSION [36] In the upshot, and for the foregoing reasons, this court had sentenced the Accused/Respondent to 2 years and 5 months imprisonment from the date of arrest. Further, no order of forfeiture of the car was to be given. 11
Dated: 30 September 2017 (DATO AHMAD BIN BACHE) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu Kelantan. Pendakwa Raya/Perayu: TPR Wong Siew Mun Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan, Blok 5, Tingkat Bawah, Kota Darulnaim, 15050 Kota Bharu, Kelantan Peguamcara/Responden: Puan Azwani binti Abdul Rahman Tetuan Azwani Rahman & Norfaruqi, Peguambela & Peguamcara, Lot 2731A, Wisma Haminah, Jalan Wakaf Stan, Kubang Kerian 16150 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. 12