The Intermediate Court has sentenced a repeat offender to two years and eight months’ imprisonment for entering a home and stealing five valuable items, including an iPhone, drone and laptop.
The sentence was handed down by Judge Hazarena POKSJ DP Haji Hurairah on August 8, in a case involving an offence under section 451 of the Penal Code, Chapter 22.
The defendant, Muhammad Nurilham bin Mohammad Nasri, pleaded guilty on August 5, to house trespass with intent to commit theft.
The court heard that on the morning of July 18, the defendant travelled by bus from Jalan Kota Batu to Kampong Serasa before entering a house at No. 40, Simpang 83, Jalan Serasa through an unlocked rear door.
He entered a bedroom and stole an iPhone 16 Pro, DJI Air 3 drone, Dell laptop, Citizen wristwatch and Alba wristwatch.
After returning home, he kept the stolen property in his room. Later that day, he took the iPhone to a mobile-phone shop intending to have it reformatted. The attempt was unsuccessful.
The following day, he instructed his wife to dispose of the stolen property.
He was arrested on July 23, and admitted during police investigations that he had unlawfully entered the house and stolen the items. All five items were subsequently recovered.
Repeat offending a major aggravating factor
The court considered the defendant’s previous convictions to be the principal aggravating factor.
His antecedents included convictions for house trespass and other property offences, including offences under sections 451, 448 and 457 of the Penal Code, as well as theft offences under sections 379 and 380.
His most recent offence, committed before the present case, resulted in a three-year-six-month prison sentence and three strokes of whipping in 2023.
Judge Hazarena found that the present offence was therefore not an isolated lapse, but demonstrated persistence in property-related offending and a failure to respond to previous sentences.
The court also considered the fact that the offence involved a human dwelling and that the defendant proceeded into a bedroom, an especially private area.
Although the rear door was unlocked and there was no forced entry, the court stressed that an unlocked door was not an invitation to enter.
The taking of five portable and valuable items, together with the attempted reformatting of the phone and subsequent instruction to dispose of the property, were also aggravating circumstances.
Guilty plea and recovery of property
The court gave credit for the defendant’s early guilty plea and his admission during police investigations.
The recovery of all the stolen property also reduced the victim’s ultimate financial loss.
However, the court noted that the absence of forced entry, confrontation or physical injury amounted more to an absence of further aggravation than strong positive mitigation.
The defendant’s unemployment at the time of the offence was given little weight in light of his extensive and relevant criminal record.
The court referred to Mohammad bin Yusof v Public Prosecutor, where the Court of Appeal held that three years’ imprisonment was an appropriate starting point for a section 451 offence involving house trespass with intent to commit theft.
Reference was also made to Abdul Wakil bin Samsun Yusra v Public Prosecutor, where a three-year starting point was adopted for each of three section 451 offences.
Judge Hazarena held that three years’ imprisonment was the standard starting point for an ordinary section 451 offence, but found that the present case warranted an upward adjustment because of the defendant’s relevant antecedents, the failure of previous sentences to deter him, the intrusion into a bedroom, the number and nature of the items stolen, and his attempts to conceal or dispose of the property.
A starting point of four years’ imprisonment was therefore adopted.
After a one-third reduction for the early guilty plea, the defendant was sentenced to two years and eight months’ imprisonment.
The sentence was ordered to take effect from the date he was first remanded.