SIBU: A 33-year-old man, who was caught with a 92cm samurai sword in a car at Selangau Market, Mukah, has failed to overturn his five-year jail sentence and one stroke of the cane.
The High Court here on Tuesday (Aug 11) dismissed the appeal by Demang Inyu, upholding the sentence imposed by the Mukah Sessions Court on April 24, 2025.
Judicial Commissioner Alvin Leong Yin Yuan found no reason to interfere with the Sessions Court judge’s exercise of discretion and maintained what was described as the statutory minimum punishment under Section 6(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 (CESOWA).
The offence carries between five and 10 years’ imprisonment and whipping. The Sessions Court had imposed the minimum five-year term, backdated to Demang’s arrest on March 14, 2025, together with one stroke of the cane.
The appeal centred largely on whether Demang should have been granted a bond of good behaviour under Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) instead of being jailed and whipped.
His legal counsel Tiong Ing Neng argued that the Sessions Court had wrongly treated him as a non-first offender because he had subsequently been convicted of theft.
However, the prosecution represented by deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Mark Kenneth Netto argued that even if Demang was technically a first offender when the samurai sword offence was committed, first-offender status did not automatically entitle him to a bond.
He submitted that Section 294 required the court to consider a wider range of circumstances, including an offender’s character, antecedents, the nature of the offence and any extenuating circumstances.
The court was told that police intercepted Demang at about 3.30pm on March 14, 2025, after officers spotted a grey Proton Persona parked in a suspicious manner near PMG Pharmacy at Selangau Market.
A search of the vehicle uncovered the sheathed 92cm samurai sword on the rear passenger seat. According to the prosecution’s written submission, Demang personally pointed out where the weapon was located during the search.
The prosecution also told the court that Demang resisted arrest and engaged in a physical struggle with police officers, who had to use force to restrain him.
The incident occurred while police were investigating another theft-related matter.
Demang had pleaded guilty to possessing the offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or lawful purpose.
His defence had relied on several mitigating circumstances, including his guilty plea, remorse, family responsibilities and his status as a first-time offender.
He was also described as the sole breadwinner for his wife and three young children, while supporting his elderly parents. His asthma was also raised in mitigation. No physical injury or property damage resulted from the offence.
The prosecution maintained that those circumstances did not reach the threshold required to replace the statutory punishment with a good behaviour bond.
The prosecution further argued that the sword’s presence in a public market car park was itself a serious public-safety concern, stressing that the offence was complete upon possession of the prohibited weapon and did not require actual injury to occur.
Another point raised was Demang’s theft conviction on April 18, 2025, six days before he was sentenced for the CESOWA offence. He had received a six-month custodial sentence for the theft.
The prosecution acknowledged that the theft conviction came after the samurai sword offence was committed but argued that it was still relevant to the Sessions Court’s assessment of his character and antecedents when sentence was imposed on April 24, 2025.
In rejecting the appeal, the High Court held that the Sessions Court had not imposed a sentence above the statutory range.
Instead, it had imposed the minimum punishment prescribed by Parliament.
The court also found no sufficient basis to conclude that the Sessions Court’s reference to Demang’s record materially affected its decision to refuse a Section 294 bond.
The prosecution had urged the High Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the original sentence, arguing that there was no patent or material defect warranting appellate intervention.
The case underscores the strict sentencing regime introduced for offensive weapons under CESOWA, with the prosecution pointing out that Parliament increased the penalty in 2014 from imprisonment of up to two years to five to 10 years’ imprisonment together with whipping.
The appeal was therefore dismissed, with Demang’s five-year imprisonment and one stroke of the cane affirmed.
