The Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Dato Seri Paduka Steven Chong, together with Justices Michael Peter Lunn and Edward Timothy Starbuck Woolley, upheld a prison sentence for a repeat offender involved in housebreaking, theft, and trespassing offences, but slightly reduced his punishment after finding an error in how credit was given for his guilty plea.

Hasmyzan Hamzi bin Haji Hashim, had admitted to three offences in November 2025 and was originally sentenced to four years and four months in prison, plus three strokes of the cane. After the appeal, the court reduced the caning sentence to two strokes, leaving the prison term unchanged. According to the court, the owner of a home in Panaga, Kuala Belait, discovered that someone had entered the property in September 2025 through a damaged laundry room window while the family was asleep.

A range of items were taken, including cash, cards, a laptop, headphones, and two bicycles. Police investigations revealed that Hasmyzan Hamzi and another person had visited the house twice in the same early morning period, where they first removed one bicycle, left, and then returned to enter the house and steal additional items.

Some of the stolen property was later sold, while other items were recovered by police.

Five days later, the Hasmyzan Hamzi targeted another house in Seria, where the homeowner received a motion alert from a CCTV system and reviewed footage showing someone attempting to enter through the back door.

Investigators concluded that the appellant had entered the property intending to steal but left after noticing security cameras.

A major factor in the court’s decision was the Hasmyzan Hamzi’s criminal record, with the judges noting that between 2010 and 2020, he had accumulated 18 previous convictions, including 11 theft-related offences, along with convictions involving drugs, causing hurt, and obstructing a public servant.

Hasmyzan Hamzi argued for a lighter sentence because his wife and two young children depended financially on him and said he regretted his actions, as the starting point for the sentence was six years imprisonment and three strokes for the break-in at Panaga, and four years and three strokes for the second in Seria.

However, the Court of Appeal said family hardship following imprisonment was unfortunately common and did not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying a reduction, with Chief Justice Dato Seri Paduka Steven Chong agreeing that the prison terms themselves were appropriate.

The court also noted that the offences showed planning, involved separate victims, and happened on different occasions, making it reasonable for one sentence to run consecutively rather than all at the same time.

While the court upheld the decision, it identified one issue relating to the reduction of the prison sentence to reflect the appellant’s guilty plea, but did not apply the same reduction to the caning sentence.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the same principle should apply to both forms of punishment.

As such, the final sentence was set at four years and four months’ imprisonment, and two strokes of the cane, which was reduced from three. The court otherwise upheld the original sentencing decision. – Daniel Lim

Courtesy of Borneo Bulletin