(Borneo Bulletin Bandar Seri Begawan, 21st) The Court of Appeal recently reduced the sentence of a 38-year-old habitual offender, Muhammad Reduan, for burglary. His sentence was reduced from the original 12 years and 7 months’ imprisonment with six strokes of the cane, as imposed by the Intermediate Court, to eight years’ imprisonment with four strokes of the cane. The Court of Appeal ruled that there were errors in calculating the sentence by the court of first instance and that the overall sentence was excessive.
Muhammad Reduan had previously been convicted of four counts of burglary and one count of causing hurt, all of which occurred in the Kampong Mata-Mata area between 2021 and 2022. The defendant initially pleaded not guilty and stood trial with two co-defendants, but later changed his plea to admit to multiple charges. The reasons for the original sentence included the defendant’s 21 prior records of theft and the gravity of the crimes, such as breaking into homes and schools, and attacking a resident who confronted him with a slingshot.
The appeal was heard by Chief Justice Dato Seri Paduka Steven Chong, along with Justices Michael Lunn and Edward Timothy Starbuck Woolley. The court pointed out that the original verdict contained an “arithmetic error” and relied too much on the defendant’s criminal record from another case. In reality, only four counts of burglary were established in this case, whereas the referenced case involved 17 charges.
The Court of Appeal also criticized the nearly two-year delay from the start of the trial to sentencing, describing the repeated adjournments as “unreasonable” and detrimental to the administration of justice. While upholding the sentences for most of the charges, the court concluded that the total sentence was “manifestly excessive” and recalculated the penalties accordingly.
The court also commended the prosecution’s fair representation during proceedings, noting that the prosecution likewise acknowledged the sentencing calculation error and agreed that the total sentence should be between eight to nine years.
The appeal was heard by Chief Justice Dato Seri Paduka Steven Chong, along with Justices Michael Lunn and Edward Timothy Starbuck Woolley. The court pointed out that the original verdict contained an “arithmetic error” and relied too much on the defendant’s criminal record from another case. In reality, only four counts of burglary were established in this case, whereas the referenced case involved 17 charges.
The Court of Appeal also criticized the nearly two-year delay from the start of the trial to sentencing, describing the repeated adjournments as “unreasonable” and detrimental to the administration of justice. While upholding the sentences for most of the charges, the court concluded that the total sentence was “manifestly excessive” and recalculated the penalties accordingly.
The court also commended the prosecution’s fair representation during proceedings, noting that the prosecution likewise acknowledged the sentencing calculation error and agreed that the total sentence should be between eight to nine years.