The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence of Mohd Rafiuddin bin Garip, who pleaded guilty to arson and vandalism charges.
The decision, delivered on June 18 by Chief Justice Dato Seri Paduka Steven Chong alongside Justices Conrad Seagroatt and Edward Timothy Starbuck Woolley, confirmed the lower court’s sentence of three years’ imprisonment and six canings after Mohd Rafiuddin was convicted of setting fire to his father’s vehicle and causing damage to another car.
On November 25, 2022, Mohd Rafiuddin set the vehicle on fire, and causing approximately BND500 in damage.
Prior to that incident, he pushed another vehicle down a slope, causing it to collide with a wall. He later also struck it with a metal bar, resulting in total damages of BND1,120.
The incident escalated when Mohd Rafiuddin threatened a passer-by who attempted to assist with a stick, prompting the individual to notify the authorities.
During the initial hearing, presided over by Judge Zelda Skinner on December 27, 2022, Mohd Rafiuddin’s peculiar behaviour led Prosecutor Syafina binti Abdul Hadzid to refer him to the Mental Health Unit.
The report from the unit, though not elaborated upon in court, indicated no mental illness but did not explain his odd conduct.
Mohd Rafiuddin, who represented himself, expressed resentment towards his family, blaming them for not providing adequate support, such as helping him renew his identity card or buy necessities. His troubled relationship with his family was cited as a contributing factor to his actions.
Despite Mohd Rafiuddin’s lack of prior convictions, the sentencing judge imposed a cumulative sentence of four years and six months, reduced by one-third due to his guilty plea, resulting in three years and six strokes of the cane.
An additional concurrent sentence of eight months and two strokes was applied for the second offence.
The appeal challenged the number of strokes ordered. The appellate court, however, noted that the statutory minimum of six strokes was mandated by law and could not be altered.
The Court of Appeal found no grounds to reduce the sentence, emphasising the severity of the offences and the impact on the victim, his father.
However the court admonished the prosecution’s handling of the case, including a delayed submission on sentencing and a disregard for the mental health report. – Fadley Faisal
