Published on: Saturday, April 13, 2019
“However, having being informed of the appellant’s antecedent i.e. he works as a rubber tapper with a monthly income of RM130, uneducated and being in residence from the deep interior of Pitas, it is obvious that he has no knowledge of the recent changes of sentencing policy against protected wildlife.
“I believe that if he had the advantage of knowing that the sentencing policy against such act, has been increased from a punitive penalty previously into custodial sentence; subjectively, he will refrain from such wrongdoing and also that he was not the actual perpetrator but merely a person who was asked to sell such animal products,” held Nurchaya.