JUDGMENTS

Criminal Motion No. 38 of 2018

[Sentence-the applicant pleaded guilty to three charge: 1st charge, outraging the modesty of his step-daughter, aged 13 to 14 years, contrary to section 354B of the Penal Code (3 years imprisonment); 2nd charge, observing and video recording his naked 16 year-old step daughter in her bedroom in the family home as she dressed following bathing, contrary to section 377H of the Penal Code (8 months imprisonment, consecutive to the 1st charge); and 3rd charge , consumption of Methylamphetamine, contrary to section 6 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act ($1,500 fine- payment forthwith, 3 months’ imprisonment in default.)

Appeal against sentence allowed: 2nd charge, the sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment was quashed and a sentence of 4 months’ imprisonment substituted, to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed on the 1st charge; the Court regretted the destruction by the prosecution of the recording and all copies prior to the hearing, albeit pursuant to an order of the judge sought by the prosecution; 3rd charge, the judge having made no enquiries as to the applicant’s means, the Court quashed the order that in default of payment of the fine, the applicant serve a sentence of 3 months imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the other sentences]

Decision date: 15 Nov 2018

Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2018

[Conviction-the judge was entitled to choose between the conflicting evidence of the two psychiatric expert witnesses and had given adequate reasons for doing so.

Sentence-appeal allowed. The judge erred in sentencing in not giving effect to his finding that the appellant’s schizophrenic illness played a substantial causal contributory link to the commission of the offences. The Court of Appeal sentenced afresh: a discount of about one-third was afforded to the victim from the appropriate sentences. The sentence of 1½ years’ imprisonment imposed for the abuse that led to the disfigurement of the victim’s left breast, by the removal of the nipple, was inadequate and the appropriate sentence was 30 months imprisonment. The total sentence imposed on the appellant was 4 years’ imprisonment]

Decision date: 15 Nov 2018

Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2018

[Sentence-appeal against a sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment on a plea of guilty to an offence of arson in a commercial building, contrary to section 435 (1) (c) of the Penal Code, Cap. 22 dismissed. The offence was pre-planned by the appellant, a 57-year-old man with no previous convictions. Having driven in his motorcar to the premises from his home in the early hours of the morning, the appellant started the fire with a bottle of kerosene, which he ignited as a revenge attack against the owners of a neighbouring vendors Booth. Then, he left the premises and returned home in his motorcar. Over one hundred persons were evacuated from adjoining domestic premises. The damage to the premises was very extensive, the estimated cost of repair of which was $134,800]

Decision date: 14 Nov 2018

Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2018

[Sentence-party to the forgery and use of 8 cheques, to a total value of $37,779, over a period of about 3 months, contrary to s.471 of the Penal Code, Cap. 22. Otherwise appropriate sentences of 24 months’ imprisonment on each charge, discounted by 3 months’ imprisonment to reflect unjustified delay of over 2 ½ years in bringing the appellant before the court]

Decision date: 1 Nov 2018

About GOV.BN  |  Research Us   |  Rate this Website

Digital Services

Overview of Digital Government

Digital Government Strategy & Initiatives

Digital Government Strategic Plans & Legislation

Other Information

Circular & Policy

Tenders & Quotations

TPOR for Government Agencies

Privacy Statement  |  Terms of Use  |  Disclaimer

Copyright Goverment of Brunei Darussalam. All Right Reserved.