SIBU: The High Court here today dismissed an appeal filed by a 57-year-old man and upheld the sentence imposed on him by the lower court to serve eight years’ imprisonment for seriously assaulting another man.
The appellant, Bolhassan Mahsen on Dec 14 last year at the Sarikei Sessions Court , maintained his plea of guilty to the charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Murasili Bolhassan, aged 57, with a machete at the roadside of Kampung Sekaan Besar in Matu district on Oct 5 last year at about 1 am.
As such, he had committed an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Penal Code which provides for an imprisonment of up to 20 years, and liable to fine or whipping.
Aggrieved by the sentence, the appellant sought legal representation from the National Legal Aid Foundation and filed the appeal to the High Court against the sentence imposed.
In his submission, the prosecution/respondent handled by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Mark Kenneth Netto said the appellant had entered a guilty plea before Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) on Oct 10 last year.
However, he said before appellant could be convicted, DPP Umi Syukriah Harun made an application on her own motion to refer the appellant to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation which was allowed by SCJ, and was confirmed by forensic psyhiatric specialist, among other things, that the appellant has schizophrenia but certified that the appellant was fit to plea and stand trial.
On Dec 14 2023, he said, the appellant was brought back to the Sarikei Sessions Court to face his charge again and he had maintained his guilty plea.
The SCJ, he stated, having been satisfied that the appellant understood the nature and consequence of his plea, accepted it and proceeded to convict and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment with the date of his arrest on Oct 5, 2023.
Netto submitted that the appellant is attempting to argue that his conviction is illegal because at the time he entered his guilty plea there was evidence that his psychiatric report before the SCJ indicating that he suffered from schizophrena.
He stated that if the appellant does not raise the issue of insanity as a defence, the SCJ is not duty-bound to determine this issue by conducting a full enquiry as to whether the appellant was legally insane at the time of the commission of the offence.
Hence, he submitted that the appellant’s conviction is safe, and that before imposing sentence against the appellant, the SCJ did consider several sentencing principles.
“In doing so, paramount consideration was given by the SCJ to the interest of the public which outweighed the appellant’s interest.
“As regards to the adequacy of the sentence imposed, it was not manifestly excessive in the light of the violent nature of the attack on the victim and the type of weapon used. The sentence imposed was in accordance with law.
“Hence, the appellant’s appeal against the sentence ought to be dismissed,” Netto added.
In his ruling, High Court Judge, Wong Siong Tung stated that the primary ground of the appellant’s appeal against the eight years’ imprisonment imposed by the SJC is that the Court did not consider or adequately consider the appellant’s mentai conditions as disclosed in psychiatric report as at the time of the commission of the offence despite certifying that the appellant was fit to plead and stand trial.
It was submitted, he said, these conditions made the appellant more susceptible to provocation by the victim, leading to violence, and thus the sentence imposed is excessive given the circumstances.
In sentencing, he said, the SJC stated the various factors taken into account including the psychiatric report.
He pointed out although the SJC did not elaborate on the different weights assigned to these factors in determining the sentence, the imposed sentence is not wholly out of the trends observed in similiar cases.
“This Court cannot conclude that the SJC failed to consider the appellant’s mental conditions and possible inability to reasonably control himself under provocation..
“It is not inappropriate for this Court to alter a lower court’s sentence merely because it might have imposed a different one.
“Having considered the record of appeal and the written and oral submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned DPP, this Court is not persuaded that the sentence imposed by the SCJ is manifestly excessive, illegal, improper, or based on incorrect sentencing principles, given all disclosed facts.
“Therefore, the appellant’s appeal is dismissed,” Judge Wong concluded.
