SIBU: The High Court here sentenced a 32-year-old man to a further three months’ imprisonment following appeal by the prosecution against the RM3,500 fine in default two weeks’ jail imposed by the lower court for committing criminal intimidation.
The ruling was made by Justice Wong Siong Tung on Wednesday after allowing the appeal filed by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Mark Kenneth Netto.
Upon being convicted by the Sarikei Magistrates’ Court on Nov 13, 2024, Imang Swak was sentenced to a fine of RM3,500, in default two weeks’ jail after pleaded guilty to the amended charge.
The charge against him stated that he had threatened to cause death to Peter Bunsi Chew, aged 52, with intent to cause alarm to the latter in front of an unnumbered house along Selaui Road in the district of Sarikei on Oct 27, 2024, at about 4.50 am.
As such, he had committed criminal intimidation under Section 503 of the Penal Code and punishable under the second limb to section 506 of the same Code.
Aggrieved by the sentence being manifestly inadequate, the prosecution filed a notice of appeal on Nov 19, 2024.
On the facts of the accused’s case, DPP Mark submitted that there was a high degree of intent to commit intimidation as evidenced by the accused’s verbal threats and his use of a very dangerous weapon.
He pointed out that a mere fine would inaccurately place the accused’s acts of criminal intimidation as non-serious.
He argued that an appropriate sentence in the accused’s case should be that of a custodial sentence of six months’ imprisonment as that is the starting point imposed by the Singaporean Courts with similar facts.
“A custodial sentence of such a length would be sending the right signal to the public at large that a person who intimidates another with death using a dangerous weapon will not get away with a mere fine,” DPP Mark added.
Having examined the record, Justice Wong ruled that the Magistrate concerned merely listed standard sentencing factors without explaining how they were weighed or why a fine alone was appropriate for an offence involving a threat to life with a weapon.
Stating that sentencing is not a checklist exercise, he noted that where Paliament has placed imprisonment as the primary sentencing option as under the second limb of section 506 Penal Code, a departure of a non-custodial sentence must be justified by clear and cogent reasons.
No such justification appears on the record, he said, adding, the absence of a reasoned sentence decision warrants appellate intervention.
He pointed out that a threat to kill, reinforced by the use of a machete, made at close promimity and at a private residence, is a serious affront to public order and personal safety.
While the accused’s guilty plea and personal circumstances have been considered, he said they are not exceptional and cannot outweigh the need for deterrence and denunciation in cases of lethal intimidation..
He also stressed that a fine alone fails to reflect the gravity of the offence and risks trivialising threats of serious violence.
“Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Given due credit to the accused’s plea of guilty and having taken his personal circumstances into account, and whilst affirming the fine of RM3,500 imposed by the Magistrate, this Court further sentences the accused to a term of three months’ imprisonment, ” Justice Wong added.
