THEFT MITIGATION

BAILIFF: Order in the court. All rise! The Honourable Justice __________ presiding.
JUDGE: You may be seated.
[Everyone sits, except the bailiff.]
BAILIFF: The case before the court is the case of Public Prosecutor v Ahmad. His Honour Judge
____ presiding.
[Bailiff sits.]
JUDGE: Thank you. Are all parties present?
[Prosecutor stand]
PROSECUTOR: Yes my Lord. I am __________ and this is my co counsel _________. We are acting
on behalf of the prosecution in this matter.
[Prosecutor sits; defence stands.]
DEFENCE: My Lord. I am __________ and this is co counsel __________.
We are acting on behalf of the accused, Ahmad.
[Defence sits.]
JUDGE: Thank you. Ahmad, please rise to hear the charge.
PROSECUTION: That you, Ahmad bin Ali (NRIC:. 870543-07-5791) at 25th November 2013 at 4.45
pm at Rumah Kedai Jalan Melati, Jalan Melaka, Ayer Keroh, did unlawfully take one ring which
belong to one Jessy Lee Chong Wai (NRIC: 901010-13-5067) without her consent and thereby
commit theft under Section 378 of Penal Code and shall be punishable under Section 379of the Penal
Code. How do you plead?
Ahmad: Plead guilty.
Judge: You have been found guilty of the offence of theft under Section 378 of the Penal Code and a
sentencing will be held now. Prosecution, do you have a submission on the appropriate sentence?
Prosecution: Yes, my Lord, I do. This is Ahmads first offence and he actually admitted to the
commission of theft. I suggest that the appropriate sentence in this case is a period of imprisonment
for the maximum allowed under the Penal Code Act.
JUDGE: Defence, do you have anything to say?
DEFENCE: Yes, my Lord. Ahmad comes from a good family and has never done anything like this
before so I submit that an absolute discharge is more appropriate. He would not have a criminal
record that would spoil his future. He has gone through a criminal trial, which has been very traumatic
for him and he has lost his parents due to last years accident and he is the sole support and income for
his 2 sisters.

JUDGE: Ahmad, please stand. You have been found guilty of a serious criminal offence and must not
take these proceedings lightly. Considering all the facts before the court I have come to the conclusion
that the public interest is in no way better served by committing the appellant to prison. The primary
purpose of punishment is reformatory and it is clear in this case you have realized the fact that
notwithstanding your status you are not above the law. You have also clearly stated that you have
repented and would not make the same mistake again. Under the circumstances it is my opinion that
the public interest is best served by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment and substituting
therefore an order under section 294(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code that the accused enter into a
bond with one surety in the sum of one thousand ringgit malaysia for a period of two years and in the
meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. I am of the view that I ought to have
considered the fact that there was some element of provocation (i.e. accused's sister aged 11 and 15
years being held hungry at home for two days) leading to the accused behaving the way he did. The
conduct of the accused that led to the charges arose directly from that. The accused did not plan to go
to the pawn shop to steal the ring. Prior to that incident he had no history of criminal behaviour.
Further, I should have taken into account the fact that the charges were not so serious as to warrant 5
months of incarceration as the charges were also compoundable under the CPC. In all the
circumstances I imposed a term of 8 days' imprisonment as that was the number of days the accused
had already served in prison before being let out on bail. In addition I imposed the fines to make the
accused realize that he should keep his judgement stable and his conduct in check in future. In my
view the short term of imprisonment plus the fines together with the fact that the accused will
hereafter have a criminal record is sufficient punishment for someone who is a first offender and
should satisfy the public interest. I did not want to bind over the accused under s.294 of the CPC as
prayed for on his behalf as a binding over will not be sufficient to send out a strong enough message,
in the interest of the public, that the committing theft will not be treated lightly by the courts.
BAILIFF: This court stands adjourned.