KOTA KINABALU: The High Court will fix the date later to deliver its decision on the appeal by a local man against his conviction and sentence for insulting the Sultan of Perak Sultan Azlan Shah in an online statement published five years ago.
Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum has yet to fix the date, after hearing submissions from the appellant and respondent here yesterday.
On November 20, 2013, the lower court fined Rutinin Suhaimin, 41, RM15,000, in default, eight months’ jail, for posting the offending remarks on website http://books.dreambooks.com/duliduli.html that was linked to the website of the Perak Sultan, namely www.sultanperak.gov.my.
Rutinin was convicted under Section 233 (1)(9) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which carries a jail sentence of up to one year or a fine not exceeding RM50,000, or both, upon conviction.
Earlier, Muammar Julkarnain, for the appellant, argued that the offence was not committed by the appellant based on eyewitnesses who claimed that he was not at the premises that day.
Rutinin, a mobile phone repairer, had allegedly committed the offence at a cyber cafe located at Block A, Lot 4, Kedai Sedco, Kundasang in Ranau, at 6.33pm on February 13, 2009.
The appellant also said that the computer used to upload the statement was publicly accessible and used by everybody.
He said the lower court had erred in fact and law when it failed to consider the evidence of teacher Saudin, the 18th prosecution witness (PW18), who admitted that there was a possibility that he was at the premises.
It is said that PW18 could have been using the computer at the time linked to the commission of the offence, in the evidence adduced by the second defence witness (DW2) during trial.
In reply, Senior Federal Counsel Jamil Aripin said there was no evidence by the defence to absolve that the accused did not commit the offence.
In a cross-appeal, Jamil also argued for a custodial sentence to be imposed on Rutinin as the fine alone is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.
He said that the internet was being abused by many irresponsible parties, therefore the fine alone did not serve as a deterrent.
The sentence, he said, must show that these parties were not beyond the reach of the law and the lower judge had lacked the regard for public interest.