Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Aabid bin Zarkasi

Appellant(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Respondent(s): Muhammad Aabid Bin Zarkasi

• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• The respondent pleaded guilty to three charges under the Penal Code arising from conduct connected to the terrorist organisation Islamic State (IS), including keeping explosive material to support a terrorist group, possessing terrorist-related items, and making explosive material in preparation for a terrorist act.
• Investigations revealed the respondent had communicated with an individual online, received instructions on manufacturing explosives using urea fertiliser, purchased relevant materials, and manufactured explosive substances, though there was no evidence he proceeded to carry out an actual attack.
• The High Court convicted the respondent on all three charges and sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment (first charge), and 3 years each (second and third charges), all running concurrently; the Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentence as manifestly inadequate.

• Whether the sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for the principal offence was manifestly inadequate having regard to the seriousness of the offence, public interest, deterrence, and the respondent's antecedent conviction.
• Whether the statutory maximum sentence (40 years) required a correspondingly higher sentence, and whether the sentencing judge erred in principle by not treating the maximum as indicative of the appropriate tariff.
• Whether the sentences ought to have been ordered to run consecutively rather than concurrently, given that the three offences involved distinct criminal liabilities.

• The Court held that appellate intervention in sentencing is limited to cases involving an error in the factual basis, a material error in appreciating facts, an error in principle, or a sentence manifestly excessive/inadequate; mere disagreement as to the weight given to aggravating or mitigating factors is insufficient to justify intervention.
• The Court found that the High Court judge had properly considered all relevant aggravating factors (seriousness of offence, public interest, deterrence, antecedent conviction, sentencing trend) and mitigating factors (guilty plea, age, remorse, rehabilitation), and had not erred in principle; the statutory maximum was correctly treated as a ceiling, not a sentencing tariff.
• The Court upheld the order for concurrent sentences, finding the three offences to be closely factually interconnected and that the principle of totality was properly applied; the appeal was dismissed and the High Court's sentence affirmed.