Judge dismisses appeal of serial drug offender
By Rol Ezam 

"Drug consumption offences must be treated seriously by the courts. The drug user, once addicted, has to obtain supplies of the drug to satisfy his craving. He has to pay for his addiction. Often, the only way to get that money is by resorting to crime, which may be trafficking in the drug itself." This was stated by Judge Dato Paduka Steven Chong upon dismissing an appeal made by a 26-year-old local, Mohd Zamil Tarip, against his 3-year imprisonment sentence after he was convicted on three counts of consuming Methylamphetamine in the Magistrate's Court earlier.

Judge Steven Chong added that drug taking has repercussions throughout the community and it is the duty of the court to do whatever it can to discourage such activity.

In his appeal, Mohd Zamil Tarip contended that section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code should have been used.

Facts of the case stated that on February 4, 2002, he claimed trial to the said charge. However, at the commencement of the trial on April 27, 2002, Mohd Zamil Tarip had a change of heart and the Magistrate sentenced him to 3 years in custody on each charge to run concurrently.

During the appeal day, the appellant who was represented by Counsel's Mr Ridzlan Hj Ibrahim, contended that there was a delay of over 2 years in the prosecution of the appellant for the offences and that was a factor which the court should consider in deciding whether to use section 263.

"Admittedly, there is a gap of over 2 years between the appellant's last conviction and the present convictions. However, this lapse between convictions, by itself, does not provide a sound basis for the use of section 263 of the CPC," Judge Steven Chong said.

Section 263 should only be used in exceptional cases 'having regard to the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the offender' or to 'any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed' and not merely because of a lapse between convictions.

The Deputy Public Prosecutor however submitted that the delay in charging the appellant was caused by the appellant himself because he could not be located by the NCB. He was placed under a supervision order after his convictions in September 1999.

He failed to report to the NCB from February 12 three years ago.

Mr Ridzlan then urged the court to consider the extenuating circumstances under which the offences were committed. Mr Ridzlan explained to the court that the appellant took the drugs during the period when his marriage was breaking down and he was not allowed to see his children.

He had since remarried and had a supportive wife and he had changed himself and had found employment as a shop assistant and society would benefit if he were to be given an opportunity to lead a fruitful life.

"I do not think the appellant can rely on his marital problems as an extenuating circumstance in the commission of these offence. It is impossible to ignore the fact that he has a history of drug abuse beginning with the taking of diazepam and codeine, and then Methylamphetamine, which is much more dangerous drug.

"And in my judgement, the circumstances of the case certainly do not merit the use of section 263 and the appeal is dismissed accordingly," said Judge Steven Chong.

Courtesy of Borneo Bulletin