SIBU: The High Court here today dismissed an appeal filed by an unemployed man, and upheld the conviction and seven-year prison sentence imposed by a lower court for drug abuse.
Reni Busri, 52, was charged on July 9 last year in the Sarikei Sessions Court with self-administering dangerous drugs – amphetamine and methamphetamine – at Jalan Mahkamah in the Meradong district on November 20, 2023.
The charge also stated that at the time of the offence, he had two prior convictions for similar offences.
He was therefore charged under Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and punished under Section 39C(1)(b) of the same Act.
Reni pleaded guilty before Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) Stella Augustine Druce, who, upon confirming that the accused understood the nature and consequences of his plea, accepted it and sentenced him to seven years in prison.
He was also ordered to undergo two years of rehabilitation supervision following the completion of his sentence.
Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, Reni filed a notice of appeal through the Sibu Central Prison.
In delivering his ruling, High Court Judge Wong Siong Tung said the court found no error, illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the Sessions Court proceedings that led to the conviction.
He pointed out that there was also no miscarriage of justice warranting revisionary intervention.
“Upon considering public interest, case facts, mitigating and aggravating factors in this case, and the submissions of counsel, the Court is not convinced that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive, illegal or improper.
“Accordingly, there are no grounds for appellate interference. The appeal is dismissed, and both the conviction and sentence are affirmed,” Judge Wong added.
Earlier, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP), Mark Kenneth Netto, representing the respondent, argued that the conviction was safe as the Sessions Court Judge had confirmed the accused’s understanding and unqualified intention in entering his plea.
He said there was no reason for the High Court to exercise its revisionary powers to overturn the conviction.
Arguing that the appeal was effectively against the sentence, Mark noted that the accused had failed to specify in his petition how the judge had erred in sentencing – an omission that is mandatory and thus fatal to the appeal.
“Since the SCJ had already considered the accused’s previous conviction records and had calibrated the extent of the enhancement of the imprisonment sentence to fit the exempted strokes of whipping, I would urge this honourable Court not to district the imprisonment sentence imposed by the SCJ.
“Hence, this honorable Court ought to dismiss the accused’s appeal and affirm the SCJ’s sentence,” Mark added.
