Public Prosecutor v Chai Kong Wee @ Chia Kong Wee

Appellant(s): Pendakwa Raya

Respondent(s): Chai Kong Wee @ Chia Kong Wee

• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid
• YA Tuan Dean Wayne Daly

• The respondent pleaded guilty in two separate High Court proceedings arising from two armed robberies involving the same firearm: a murder charge under s. 302 of the Penal Code (Hong Leong Bank, Puchong Prima, 11 March 2022) and a charge under s. 3 of the Firearms (Increased Penalty) Act 1971 (Hong Leong Bank, Subang Jaya, 3 September 2020).
• In the murder case, the High Court declined to impose the death penalty, finding the killing did not fall within the "rarest of the rare" category, and sentenced the respondent to 30 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping, to commence from the date of sentence, having regard to a related earlier conviction for attempted murder.
• In the FIPA case, the High Court likewise imposed 30 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping, ordering it to run concurrently with the murder sentence, after noting the respondent already faced an additional consecutive 60 years' imprisonment from two other unrelated convictions.

• Whether the 30-year sentence imposed for murder was manifestly inadequate, and whether the death penalty ought to have been imposed instead, following the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023.
• Whether the two offences, being separate transactions committed on different dates against different victims, ought to attract consecutive rather than concurrent sentences under the "one transaction rule".
• How the "one transaction rule" and the "totality principle" interact where an offender already faces lengthy consecutive sentences from unrelated proceedings, and the extent to which an appellate court should interfere with the trial judge's exercise of sentencing discretion.

• The Court held that the murder did not fall within the "rarest of the rare" category warranting the death penalty, and found no error in the High Court's assessment that 30 years' imprisonment with 12 strokes of whipping was an appropriate sentence within the statutory range.
• Although the two offences were separate transactions (lacking proximity of time, place, continuity of action and purpose) such that the one transaction rule strictly did not apply, the Court held that the totality principle could nonetheless justify concurrent sentencing where consecutive terms would produce a crushing and disproportionate aggregate punishment.
• Given the respondent already faced an additional 60 years' imprisonment from unrelated convictions (rendering any further consecutive term illogical, as recognised in Tuan Mat Tuan Lonik v PP), the Court found the High Court's concurrency order to be a proper exercise of sentencing discretion informed by the totality principle, and dismissed both prosecution appeals, affirming the sentences.