The New Straits Times
By Rita Jong
Liu Ching Chung, 21, and Huang Cheng Ho, 31, were sentenced at the Sepang Sessions Court on Aug 10 for possessing two forged Taiwan passports and for entering the country illegally at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport Immigration Office (Operations Department) arrival hall at 1.45am on Aug 6.
They entered Malaysia via the country's entry privilege to go to the United Kingdom.
They were sentenced to 12 months' jail for possessing the forged passports and another three months' jail and three strokes of the rotan for entering the country illegally.
The jail terms were to run consecutively from the date of their arrest on Aug 6.
Liu and Huang appealed against the sentence and sought for the jail terms to run concurrently, to set aside the whipping and to replace it with a fine.
Yesterday, Yazid upheld the lower court's sentence and whipping but ordered the jail terms to run concurrently from the date of their arrest.
He said: "Traditionally in criminal offences, whipping is only reserved for violent crime. However, in order to protect the public, the whipping sentence has been introduced into the Immigration Act to combat the prevalence of such crime."
He said the appellants' attempt to enter the UK via Malaysia using forged passports was an act which was detrimental to the country's image.
"The court is cognisant of such widening practice by foreigners who are abusing Malaysia's entry privilege to the UK," he said.
"Therefore the court is unable to turn a blind eye by granting the appellants' wish for a lenient sentence," adding the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.
By Rita Jong
SHAH ALAM: Foreigners who abuse Malaysia's entry privilege and enter the country as a transit point to get to another country are deemed to have committed a serious offence.
High Court judge Datuk Mohd Yazid Mustafa said such white collar crimes should not be spared from the whipping sentence in order to "protect the public".
He said this in dismissing the appeal of two Chinese nationals who were sentenced to 15 months' jail and three strokes of the rotan on two counts of possessing forged passports and for entering the country illegally.
High Court judge Datuk Mohd Yazid Mustafa said such white collar crimes should not be spared from the whipping sentence in order to "protect the public".
He said this in dismissing the appeal of two Chinese nationals who were sentenced to 15 months' jail and three strokes of the rotan on two counts of possessing forged passports and for entering the country illegally.
Liu Ching Chung, 21, and Huang Cheng Ho, 31, were sentenced at the Sepang Sessions Court on Aug 10 for possessing two forged Taiwan passports and for entering the country illegally at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport Immigration Office (Operations Department) arrival hall at 1.45am on Aug 6.
They entered Malaysia via the country's entry privilege to go to the United Kingdom.
They were sentenced to 12 months' jail for possessing the forged passports and another three months' jail and three strokes of the rotan for entering the country illegally.
The jail terms were to run consecutively from the date of their arrest on Aug 6.
Liu and Huang appealed against the sentence and sought for the jail terms to run concurrently, to set aside the whipping and to replace it with a fine.
Yesterday, Yazid upheld the lower court's sentence and whipping but ordered the jail terms to run concurrently from the date of their arrest.
He said: "Traditionally in criminal offences, whipping is only reserved for violent crime. However, in order to protect the public, the whipping sentence has been introduced into the Immigration Act to combat the prevalence of such crime."
He said the appellants' attempt to enter the UK via Malaysia using forged passports was an act which was detrimental to the country's image.
"The court is cognisant of such widening practice by foreigners who are abusing Malaysia's entry privilege to the UK," he said.
"Therefore the court is unable to turn a blind eye by granting the appellants' wish for a lenient sentence," adding the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.
No comments:
Post a Comment