PUTRAJAYA: A wheelchair-bound man was sent to jail on Wednesday (May 17) by the Court of Appeal after he failed in his final appeal to set aside his conviction and six-month jail sentence for possession of a stolen car.
Taufik Goh Abdullah, 48, was not represented by a lawyer when he pleaded guilty to the charge while lying in a hospital bed and he was subsequently convicted by a magistrate.
The initial court proceedings were conducted in a hospital in Muar on Feb 4, 2020, in the presence of the magistrate, the Deputy Public Prosecutor and the investigating officer where Taufik was admitted after he collapsed while being held in remand at the Muar police station and was taken to the hospital.
In his appeal Wednesday, Taufik, a restaurant owner, questioned the validity of his plea of guilt and also contended that the magistrate did not follow the procedure under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Justice Datuk Seri Kamaludin Md Said, chairing the three-man Court of Appeal bench, dismissed Taufik’s appeal and ruled that his (Taufik’s) appeal against the conviction and custodial sentence imposed by the magistrate was safe.
Justice Kamaludin also issued a warrant of committal for Taufik, who was present in court in a wheelchair, to begin his jail sentence from Wednesday.
Justices Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim and Datuk Azimah Omar were the two other judges presiding with Justice Kamaludin.
Two policemen were seen ushering Taufik into the court lock-up after the court delivered the decision.
Taufik had pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of possessing stolen property - a Perodua Myvi 1.5 SE - belonging to Nurul Farha Pardi at his restaurant in Kluang, Johor, at 11pm on Jan 28, 2020.
He was sentenced to six months’ jail, the minimum imprisonment sentence prescribed for the offence.
He then filed an appeal to the High Court against his conviction and jail term but it was dismissed on Dec 19, 2021.
On Jan 25, 2022, Taufik was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against his conviction and sentence on three questions of law.
The question concerned whether his plea of guilt taken was valid, whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the court proceedings and whether a binding-over order could be made instead of a custodial sentence.
In Wednesday’s proceeding, Taufik’s lawyer G. Visvanathan Nair said his client was on medication at that time and could not decide on his own when he pleaded guilty to the charge and also his client did not understand the nature and consequences of the offence.
He also urged the court to either order a retrial or allow his client to be bound over for good behaviour.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Samihah Rhazali, however, submitted that there was no procedural error when the magistrate accepted Taufik’s guilty plea, adding that Taufik was fully aware of the proceeding. - Bernama
