1. Tiada manusia yang tidak pernah melakukan kesilapan. Namun, apa yang paling penting adalah usaha untuk merubah diri, yang mana proses ini akan mengambil masa yang panjang dan berperingkat. Ada berjaya dan sebaliknya.
2. Sebegitulah juga bagi mana-mana individu yang terlibat dalam kancah jenayah. Terutama dalam penggunaan najis dadah. Ada yang benar-benar berubah selepas ditangkap, namun selepas beberapa ketika, mungkin selang berpuluh tahun, akan terjebak kembali. Apabila ditangkap, didakwa di Mahkamah, tetap juga menerima hukuman. Kita menduga pasti hukuman lebih berat akan dikenakan. Kebiasaan sebegitulah.
3. Namun, dalam kes sebegini, terdapat keadaan khas dan tertentu boleh dijadikan hujah oleh tertuduh atau Peguambela dalam memohon hukuman yang sedikit ringan dari pihak Mahkamah Yang Mulia atas dasar tertuduh ini telah lama berubah sejak sekian lama, namun baru sahaja kini terjebak kembali. Mitiagasi ini boleh diprinsipkan sebagai ‘Gap Principle’.
4. Prinsip ini telah dibincangkan di dalam kes ZAIDON SHARIFF v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, [1996] 4 CLJ 441, Mahkamah yang antara lain memutuskan bahawa:
“….The rationale of the gap principle is that the offender has made an effort to rehabilitate himself and it should, accordingly, operate in his favour. In this regard, D.A. Thomas in his book entitled Principles of Sentencing said, at p. 179:
The fact that an offender who has a criminal record has made an effort to 'go straight' since his last conviction or release from prison normally counts as a substantial mitigating factor if he subsequently commits an offence. In the case where the previous offences were trivial and committed in the long distant past, the Court will normally disregard them entirely and treat the offender as a man of previous good character. Where the previous convictions are more numerous or are for offences of a more serious character, the existence of a period free from conviction immediately before the commission of the present offence still has substantial mitigating effect. Clearly, the longer the period, the more effect it will have in mitigation, but while in some of the cases illustrating this point the period may be as long as twelve years, the Court will normally give credit for much shorter periods. In Rosa, a man of 41 sentenced to four years for housebreaking had ten previous convictions for dishonesty and violence, and had on one occasion been sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for wounding with intent. After his release from this sentence he had married, and in the following four years had been convicted only once in respect of a minor offence for which he was fined, and achieved a work record which was 'distinctly to his credit'. In view of the appellant's effort to reform, the sentence was reduced to two years' imprisonment.
The gap principle has received judicial recognition in a plethora of cases. See, for example, R v. Nuttall [1908] 1 Cr. App. Rep. 180 and R v. Bibbings[1918] 13 Cr. App. Rep. 205. In R v. Goodwin and Wilkinson [1910] 12 Cr. App. Rep. 85 it was held that a period of honest work between the termination of a sentence and subsequent conviction ought to be taken into account in passing sentence for the latter. In R v. Gunthrip [1925] 19 Cr. App. Rep. 45 the sentence was mitigated in view of the gap of three years' crime-free life between the two convictions…”
5. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah boleh sahaja mempertimbangkan hukuman yang sedikit ringan, ataupun dengan tidak mempertimbangkan bahawa tertuduh dahulu pernah mempuyai rekod lampau (previous conviction) atau sabitan lampau dalam memutuskan hukuman kes yang dihadapi kini.Namun, ia tetap budibicara mutlak pihak Mahkamah Yang Mulia dengan juga melihat kepada faktor-faktor lain seperti hujahan pemberat dari pihak Pendakwaan Yang Bijaksana, tahap keseriusan jenayah (nature of offence) dan lain lain lagi.
6. Merujuk kepada kes SOOSAINATHAN v. PP, [2001] 6 CLJ 44 , Mahkamah menyatakan bahawa:-
“….In any event the fact that there has been a ten-year gap in the appellant's criminal record has not been duly appreciated by the learned Magistrate. The appellant's clean record since his last conviction in 1986 ought to have operated as a mitigating rather than as an aggravating factor. The rationale of the gap principle is that the offender has made an effort to rehabilitate himself and it should, accordingly, operate in his favour. In this regard, DA Thomas in his book entitled Principles of Sentencing said, at p. 179:
The fact that an offender who has a criminal record has made an effort to 'go straight' since his last conviction or release from prison normally counts as a substantial mitigating factor if he subsequently commits an offence. In the case where the previous offences were trivial and committed in the long distant past, the Court will normally disregard them entirely and treat the offender as a man of previous good character.
Where the previous convictions are more numerous or are for offences of a more serious character, the existence of a good period free from conviction immediately before the commission of the present offence still has substantial mitigating effect. Clearly, the longer the period, the more effect it will have in mitigation, but while in some of the cases illustrating this point the period may be as long as twelve years, the Court will normally give credit for much shorter periods. In Rosa, a man of 41 sentenced to four years for housebreaking had ten previous convictions for dishonesty and violence, and had on one occasion been sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for wounding with intent. After his release from this sentence he had married, and in the following four years had been convicted only once in respect of a minor offence for which he was fined, and achieved a work record which was 'distinctly to his credit'. In view of the appellant's effort to reform, the sentence was reduced to two years' imprisonment.
The gap principle has received judicial recognition in a plethora of cases. See, for example, R v. Nutall [1908] 1 Cr App Rep 180 and R v. Bibbings [1918] 13 Cr App Rep 205. In R v. Goodwin and Wilkinson [1910] 12 Cr App Rep 85 it was held that a period of honest work between the termination of a sentence and subsequent conviction ought to be taken into account in passing sentence for the latter. In R v. Gunthrip [1925] 19 Cr App Rep 45 the sentence was mitigated in view of the gap of three years' crime-free life between the two convictions.
The longer the gap between a previous conviction and the current offence the greater the mitigatory effect (see R v. Piercey [1971] VR 647). In R v. Boyd [1975] VR 168 a 12-year gap free of "violent crime" was considered "equivalent to good behaviour". In my opinion the determinative factor in treating a person with previous convictions as a man of previous good character is not so much the time that has lapsed since the last conviction but the positive steps that he has taken to rehabilitate himself. This is in line with the underlying principle in the assessment of the appropriate sentence which is to strike a balance between public interest and the interest of the accused.
7. Wujud juga keadaan, faktor 'gap principle' ini boleh digunakan oleh pihak tertuduh atau Peguambela untuk memohon apa-apa pertuduhan pilihan yang mewajarkan hukuman lebih ringan atau apa-apa ‘plea bargain’ yang munasabah. Terpulanglah kepada hemah tertuduh atau Peguambela memohon secara Representasi kepada Pihak Pendakwaan. Namun, untuk kaedah ini, sangatlah digalakkan menggunakan khidmat Peguambela. Ini kerana, proses membuat Representasi ini memerlukan 'seni ilmu dan pengalaman, bagi proses plea bargain/runding cara tersebut berjaya dan membuahkan hasil. Ia mungkin memerlukan kos, tapi dapat dikatakan cukup berbaloi untuk diushakan.
7. Secara umum, untuk apa apa kes Jenayah di Mahkamah, sekiranya tertuduh secara sendiri menghantar Representasi, ia tetap akan dipertimbangkan oleh Pihak Pendakwaan, namun disebabkan kekangan 'seni pengalaman' dan 'ilmu perundangan' ia mungkin tidak mencapai apa yang dihajati atau dipohon.
Ahmad Deniel Roslan
Ahmad Deniel Roslan
Tetuan Mohd Fadzli & CO
MFZ
Comments