SIBU: The High Court here on Friday (Aug 15) dismissed an appeal filed by a 41-year-old man, and upheld the conviction and seven-year prison sentence and three strokes of the cane imposed by a lower court for drug abuse.
Mohamad Fadzlan Shaini was indicted on Nov 14 last year in the Kapit Sessions Court for being found to have consumed dangerous drugs – amphetamine and methamphetamine – at Narcotics Criminal Investigation Department Office in Kapit District Police Headquarters on Sept 6, last year at about 10:25pm.
The charge also stated that at the time of the offence, he had one prior conviction for similar offence.
He was therefore charged under Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Act 234) and punished under Section 39C(2)of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
Fadzlan pleaded guilty before Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) Musyiri Peet, who, upon confirming that the accused understood the nature and consequences of his plea, accepted it and sentenced him to seven years in prison as well as three strokes of whipping.
He was also ordered to undergo two years of rehabilitation supervision upon being released after serving his imprisonment term.
Aggrieved by the decision of the SCJ with the conviction and sentence, Fadzlan filed a notice of appeal on Nov 25 last year through his solicitors.
In delivering his ruling, High Court Judge Wong Siong Tung said on the first ground, the court found the SCJ had complied with Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The charge, its nature, and its legal consequences, he noted, were read and explained to the appellant in Bahasa Malaysia and confirmed his understanding and maintained his guilty plea.
The record, he said, adequately compliance with procedural requirements, and the appellant adduced no evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity in judicial conduct.
On the second ground, relating to mental fitness, the Court, he said, observed that the medical reports relied upon were neither tendered before the SCJ nor conclusive as to the appellant’s fitness to plead at the material time.
The Court reiterated that mental illness does not automatically amount to unfitness to plead, he said, adding based on the notes of proceedings, there was nothing in the appellant’s demeanour or conduct during proceedings to raise a reasonable suspicion that he was incapable of understanding the proceedings or entering a plea.
On the third ground, concerning the alleged inducement by a police officer, Justice Wong further pointed out that the Court found no evidence linking the officer’s advice, if at all as alleged, to the appellant’s decision to plead guilty.
“The affidavit from the appellant’s father did not demonstrate direct communication between the officer and the appellant, and the appellant himself did not affirm any affidavit addressing this allegation.
“The Court found the appellant’s grounds to be inconsistent and lacking in credibility. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed,” Justice Wong concluded.
Earlier, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Mark Kenneth Netto, representing the respondent, submitted that the appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge and his guilty plea was accepted before been duly convicted and sentenced.
He pointed out that the appellant attempted to adduce additional evidence had failed to make a formal application to adduce such evidence through a notice of motion (supported by an affidavit).
Hence, he argued that there is no reason why the Court should exercise its discretion to adduce additional fresh evidence.
Even if this Court were to consider the alleged fresh evidence, Mark asserted that it will become apparent that the appellant failed to comply with the cumulative preconditions to admit fresh evidence.
“Before convicting the appellant on his guilty plea, the SCJ had complied with the preconditions under Section 173(a) & b) Criminal Procedure Code which rendered the conviction legal.
“Hence, there is no need for this honorable Court to exercise its revisionary powers to overturn the conviction.
“Since the appellant had abandoned his appeal against the sentence, there is no reason for this honorable Court to disturb the sentence imposed. Thus, the conviction and sentence against the appellant ought to be upheld,” Mark added.
