Mohd Ismail bin Abd Rahman v Pendakwa Raya

Court of Appeal · · Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This digest provides AI-generated summaries of recent Malaysian legal judgments and is provided for general informational purposes only. The digest may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. For complete and authoritative information, always consult a qualified legal professional and refer to official court sources (here) or the full text of original judgments. The providers of this digest accept no responsibility or liability for any loss and/or damage resulting from reliance on its contents.

Mohd Ismail bin Abd Rahman v Pendakwa Raya
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date20 May 2025
Date Uploaded21 November 2025
Legal TopicsCriminal Law, Criminal Procedure
Parties

Appellant(s): Mohd Ismail Bin Abd Rahman

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

Bench
  • YA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin Ghazali
  • YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
  • YAA Datuk Seri Utama Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh
Facts & Background
  • The appellant was initially charged with trafficking dangerous drugs under section 39B(1)(a) and possession under section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA).
  • Following a representation to the Public Prosecutor, the trafficking charge was reduced to an alternative charge of possession under section 12(2) DDA, punishable under section 39A(2) DDA.
  • The appellant pleaded guilty to both the alternative charge and the original section 12(2) DDA charge, leading to convictions and concurrent sentences of 12 years' imprisonment for the alternative charge and 3 years for the second charge by the High Court.
Issues for the Court
  • Whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the appellant's prior conviction record, specifically if the 2017 conviction was of a "similar nature" to the present alternative charge.
  • Whether the appellant's guilty plea, coupled with his mitigation factors, should have resulted in a lighter sentence despite his previous conviction for a drug-related offence.
  • Whether the sentence imposed by the High Court for the alternative charge was manifestly excessive, thereby warranting intervention by the Court of Appeal.
Decision
  • The Court of Appeal affirmed that the High Court was correct in finding that the appellant's 2017 conviction under section 12(2) DDA was of a similar nature to the alternative charge, justifying the High Court's consideration of him as a persistent offender.
  • The Court held that the appellant's guilty plea did not constitute a significant mitigating factor given the short period since his release from the previous conviction and his failure to rehabilitate.
  • The Court concluded that the sentence imposed by the High Court was appropriate and not excessive, being well within the statutory limits prescribed by section 39A(2) DDA and consistent with sentencing trends for similar offences.
Link to JudgmentView Full Judgment

Related judgments

📬 Found this useful?

Get daily AI-generated summaries of Malaysian legal judgments from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal straight to your inbox, free!