SIBU: The High Court on Friday (Mar 13) quashed an appeal filed by two men and upheld their total sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment and eight strokes of the cane imposed by a lower court for four counts of gang robbery.
The Sessions Court had on Nov 1, 2024 sentenced Peter Tiong, 32, and Steward Aming Galang, 28, to six years’ imprisonment and two strokes of the cane on each charge, with the sentences to run consecutively.
The committed gang robbery between June and September 2024.
The first incident occurred on June 8, 2024 at about 4 am at a residence along Jalan Tun Ahmad Zaidi Adruce.
During this incident, both men, acting together with another person, committed the offence against one Lee Siu Kheng.
They stole a mobile phone belonging to the victim.
The second took place on August 8, 2024 at approximately 3pm at a residence among Jalan Salim Stabau, whereby they, together with another person, robbed one Kong Shiew Sien.
They made off with a watch, a wallet containing RM1,200 in cash and identity card as well as a mobile handphone.
The third incident occurred on September 4, 2024 at about 6 am at a residence along Jalan Tiong Hua where they robbed one Norberto Pui Wee and stole cash amounting to RM500.
In the fourth incident which happened on September 5, 2024 at about 2.30 pm at a house along Jalan Kong Yit Khim, both men, together with a female robbed one Theng Kim Tho of an iPhone Xs Max phone.
Peter and Steward pleaded guilty to all the four charges under Section 395 of the Penal Code.
In his submission, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Mark Kenneth Netto, submitted that it is trite law that an appellate court will not interfere with a sentence unless it is shown to be mainfestly excessive, manifestly inadequate, or based on wrong principles.
Stating that the appellants do not challenge the legality of the individual sentences imposed, and indeed concede that the sentence of six years imprisonment per charge is within the prevailing sentencing range, he noted that they are arguing the aggregate sentence is excessive and has a crushing effect.
According to Mark, the offence of gang robbery which is a grave and serious offence involving violence, intimidation and violation of personal security, the imposition of six years imprisonment per charge is significantly lower than the prevailing sentencing trend.
This, he added, clearly indicates the Sessions Court judge had already extended considerable leniency to the appellants.
“The courts have repeatedly emphasised that offences involving robbery and violence must be treated with particular seriousness due to the fear and trauma inflicted upon the victims and the threat posed to public safety.
“Members of the public must be protected from offenders who repeatedly commit such crimes, and the sentencing court must impose a punishment that reflects deterrence and public interest considerations.
“In this regard, I crave that the appellants’ appeals against sentence be dismissed,” Mark argued.
In delivering his ruling, High Court Judge Alvin Leong Yin Yuan stated that bearing in mind the fact the four offences in question arose from four separate incidents committed on separate dates, at separate locations and against separate victims, the Sessions Court was in his view entirely correct in imposing separate and consecutive sentences.
He noted that the appellants had appealed to concepts of pragmatism and moderation, suggesting inter alia an aggregate reduction from 24 to 20 years’ imprisonment.
In matters such as the present, he noted that human nature may be such that it is tempting to try one’s luck in the court but the appeal process should not be reduced to an exercise in bargaining.
“It is trite that an appellate court can and will interfere in the sentence imposed by the lower court if it is satisfied that any relevant grounds are made out.
“I can find no improper factual basis or error in principle on the part of the Sessions Court judge. In addition, in view of my findings, I do not find any sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate.
“As bitter a pill as it maybe for the appellants to swallow, it must be stressed that the appellants have already been shown all the mercy and leniency they deserved. They will have to pay a heavy and commensurate price for their actions.
“I therefore dismiss the appellants’ appeals and the decision of the Sessions Court is affirmed,” Leong said.
