PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has reserved its decision on whether judges can order concurrent instead of consecutive caning sentences for offenders convicted of multiple offences.
The three-judge panel comprised of Justices Datuk Nallini Pathmanathan, Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang, and Datuk Abu Bakar Jais deferred their decision after hearing submissions from both parties in the case of lorry attendant M. Santansamy, who was convicted on three counts of drug possession.
Deputy public prosecutor Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar contended that there is no legal provision permitting judges to impose concurrent caning sentences for offenders convicted of multiple offences.
He said the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) permitted male offenders under the age of 50 to receive a maximum of 24 strokes of the cane, depending on their health condition.
Mohd Dusuki, who was assisted by DPPs Mohd Fairuz Johari and Noorhisham Mohd Jaafar, said the CPC, however, does not address the issue of imposing such sentences concurrently.
He noted that for the past 30 years, the courts have consistently ordered caning sentences to be administered consecutively.
“We cannot depart from the approach we have practised the past 30 years,” he said, adding that Santansamy must serve the caning sentence consecutively, which amounts to 20 strokes.
In 2020, Santansamy was sentenced by the Shah Alam High Court to death after being found guilty of trafficking 83.03 gms of methamphetamine.
The 47-year-old was also sentenced to 11 years in prison and 10 strokes of the cane for the possession of 10.13 gms of heroin, as well as two years in prison for possessing 7.48 gms of cannabis.
He committed the offences in a house in Taman Sri Rampai, in Wangsa Maju, Kuala Lumpur on Feb 14, 2018. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeals in July 2022.
On July 1, this year, the Federal Court sentenced Santansamy to nine years in prison and 10 strokes of the cane after the prosecution accepted his representation to amend his initial trafficking charge to one of possession.
He was ordered to serve the prison sentences concurrently, which means he will only serve 11 years in prison.
Today the court had invited the parties to submit on whether the court could order concurrent whipping sentences for Santansamy.
Earlier, Santansamy’s lawyer, Muhammad Amirrul Jamaluddin, argued that his client should only receive 10 strokes of the cane.
He urged the court to adopt the approach taken by Brunei, where judges have the discretion to order caning sentences either consecutively or concurrently.
Lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, acting as amicus curiae (friend of the court) said the court could exercise its judicial power to allow caning sentences to be administered concurrently.
He further stated that it was never Parliament’s intention to endorse such a harsh punishment by permitting consecutive caning sentences for multiple offences.
