What is a Trial?

• Published date: 01 December 1990
• Date: 01 December 1990
• Author: CHUA LEE MING

Suhaymi b. Harith & Ors v PP 1

Justice is the constant and perpetual purpose of rendering each man his due.2 One might add “no more and no less” if for no other reason than to emphasise that rendering either more or less than is due is to act unjustly.

In Suhaymi b. Harith v PP, four accused faceda totalof 226 charges for the offences of robbery, armed robbery, robbery with hurt, attempted housebreaking and housebreaking by night. The prosecution proceeded with only four charges to which the four accused entered pleas of guilty and were convicted accordingly. The 1st and 2nd accused were sentenced to 3 years imprisonment each and the 3rd and 4th accused to 5 years imprisonment each, in respect of each of the charges. The terms of imprisonment were ordered to run consecutively. In addition, each accused was ordered to receive the mandatory 10 strokes of caning for each of the first 3 charges and another 6 strokes for the 4th charge, making a total of 36 strokes for each accused.

The sentences raised two problems. First, under s.173 of the Criminal Procedure Code4 (“CPC”)

“When a person is convicted at one trial of any two or more distinct offences the court may sentence him for such offences to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such court is competent to inflict, such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the court so directs, or to run concurrently if the court so directs, but it shall not be necessary for the court, by reason of the aggregate punishments for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction of one single offence, to sent the offender for trial before a higher court:

Provided that if the case is tried by a District Court or Magistrate’s Court the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which such Court in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction is competent to inflict."

In 1976, when the case was dealt with, the maximum sentence which a District Court could pass was imprisonment not exceeding 5 years and caning up to 12 strokes.5

Secondly, s.2306 CPC provides that

“When a person is convicted at one trial of any two or more distinct offences any two or more of which are legally punishable by caning the combined sentences of caning awarded by the court for any such offences shall not, anything in any Act to the contrary notwithstanding, exceed a total number of twenty-four strokes in the case of adults and ten strokes in the case of youthful offenders.”

Sections 17 and 230 CPC thus apply where a person is “convicted at one trial of any two or more distinct offences”(emphasis added).

The learned District Judge in Suhaymi reasoned7 that ss. 17 and 230 CPC did not apply to the case before him as

1. a) where an accused person pleads guilty and is convicted on his pleas of guilty, the proceedings relating thereto cannot be regarded as a “trial” within the meaning of the two sections. As provided by s.1808 relating to summary trials, a trial necessarily involves the reading of the charge to the accused who will plead thereto. Where several charges are preferred the plea must be taken on each and every charge. The prosecution has the prerogative to proceed on all or any number of charges with the remaining charges stood down. Where the prosecution decides to proceed at the trial on two or more charges then on conviction the court will have to abide by sections 17 and 230 as the charges were tried at one trial. Where however an accused pleads guilty to a charge or several charges the proceedings are not...