E-hailing driver gets leave to challenge conviction, sentence for extorting Pastor Koh’s son

E-hailing driver gets leave to challenge conviction, sentence for extorting Pastor Koh’s son

PETALING JAYA: The Court of Appeal today granted a former e-hailing driver leave to appeal his conviction and sentence for attempting to extort RM30,000 from the son of Pastor Raymond Koh.

A three-judge panel led by Justice Zaini Mazlan granted Lam Chang Nam’s application to have a legal question considered at the full hearing, Bernama reported.

Justices Noorin Badaruddin and Radzi Abdul Hamid also heard the appeal.

The legal question is whether including Section 511 of the Penal Code to a charge under Section 385, which already covers attempted extortion, renders the charge defective.

Section 511 states that anyone who attempts to commit an offence is punishable with a penalty that may extend to half the longest term provided for that offence, including imprisonment, fine, or both, if no specific provision exists for the attempt.

DISYORKAN UNTUK ANDA :

Mampukah Slogan Saya Anti Buli Menoktahkan Jenayah Buli Di Sekolah?

On March 24, 2023, the Petaling Jaya magistrates’ court found Lam guilty of attempting to extort RM30,000 from Koh’s son, allegedly in exchange for his father’s release.

The court ordered him to pay a fine of RM7,000, or serve 18 months’ imprisonment in default.

The offence was said to have taken place at a shopping mall in Kelana Jaya, Selangor, at 9.46pm on March 6, 2017.

Lam’s appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Shah Alam High Court on May 30 this year, prompting him to take the case to the Court of Appeal.

The 39-year-old was charged under Section 385 of the Penal Code, read together with Section 511.

DISYORKAN UNTUK ANDA :

Menuduh 160 Ketua UMNO Bahagian Biadab Adalah Sangat Tidak Beretika

As the case originated in the magistrates’ court, Lam was legally required to obtain leave before proceeding with his appeal to the Court of Appeal.

During today’s proceedings, deputy public prosecutor Ng Siew Wee explained that Section 511, which specifically addresses attempted offences, was cited in the charge because the phrase “committed extortion” was used in the charge sheet.

She said the DPP handling the trial at the magistrates’ court had not amended the charge properly to reflect “attempted extortion” but instead inserted Section 511 to cover the element of attempt.

On Feb 8, 2021, the magistrates’ court acquitted and discharged Lam of a separate charge of kidnapping Koh after the prosecution withdrew that charge.

However, the attempted extortion charge was maintained.

In today’s proceedings, Lam was represented by lawyers M Manoharan and M Hariharan.