Justice Aslam Zainuddin, who conducted the revision proceedings, said the longer jail term was imposed after hearing submissions from Wong Kok Kong’s lawyer and the prosecution.
On April 6, the magistrates’ court sentenced Wong to three days in jail and fined him RM6,000 after he pleaded guilty to the offence. He has already completed his prison term and paid the fine.
The court also ordered the 32-year-old man’s driving licence to be suspended for five years.
He committed the offence along Jalan Klang Lama at 9.44am on April 5.
Wong was charged under Section 42(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987, which provides for a maximum jail term of five years, a fine of up to RM15,000, and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for no less than five years, upon conviction.
A viral video of the incident showed a vehicle driving against traffic from the Jalan Klang Lama-Jalan Sepadu intersection to the Jalan Kuchai Lama intersection.
Initial investigations found that the man had driven against traffic for about 500m after taking a wrong turn while heading towards Mid Valley Megamall.
The High Court called up the matter to determine the correctness, legality and propriety of the magistrate’s sentencing decision under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
DPP calls for deterrent sentence
Deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Nordin Ismail submitted that Wong was aware of what he was doing as he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
“His act was deliberate. A deterrent sentence should be imposed to send a message to motorists to adhere to traffic rules and regulations,” said Nordin, who was assisted by DPP Faridah Nurdhinie Bahrum.
Lawyer K Gejalaxmi, who represented Wong, submitted that the sentence meted out by the magistrate was proportionate and just as his guilty plea had saved the court’s time and resources.
The lawyer said her client was a first-time offender and that a court of law should not be swayed by reports and comments on social media.
“Any prolonged jail term would be detrimental to Wong as he is the breadwinner of his family and has to support his sick father,” she said, adding that his livelihood would also be affected, given that he is an e-hailing driver.
“The magistrate’s decision should not be disturbed because it was a ‘victimless crime’. No one was injured and no property was damaged,” she said, adding that the offence was committed due to a lapse in concentration.
However, Aslam interjected, noting that Wong had driven for about 500m, not a short distance as submitted by the lawyer and that he should have stopped immediately at the road shoulder and switched on the hazard lights.