Bold claim: a former IT consultant’s road-rage case ends with a lighter sentence than the original judgment, sparking debate about justice and proportional punishment. This rewritten account preserves every key detail while clarifying context and offering fresh phrasing.
A former information-technology consultant who caused a bank manager’s death in a road-rage incident six years ago had his prison term reduced from 16 years to 12 after the Federal Court allowed his appeal on the sentence.
A three-judge panel led by Justice Noordin Hassan ruled that the initial term set by the High Court—and upheld by the Court of Appeal—was excessively harsh. “We think the sentence is a bit high,” said Noordin, who sat with Justices Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera and Lee Swee Seng. Yew Wei Liang, 47, was seen crying in the dock, while his family expressed relief at the decision.
Lawyer N Sivananthan told reporters that Yew should be released in 2027, taking into account a one-third remission for good behavior.
The panel had previously rejected Yew’s request to be sentenced for a lesser charge—causing death without intention. It also refused the prosecution’s cross-appeal seeking conviction for murder, which would have given judges the option of imposing the death penalty or up to 40 years in prison, plus a minimum of 12 strokes of the rotan.
Deputy public prosecutor Ng Siew Wee represented the prosecution.
Yew was originally charged with murder after repeatedly colliding with Syed Danial Syed Syakir, 29, on the North-South Expressway near Bandar Baru Bangi on August 10, 2019, an incident that left Syed Danial dead at the scene.
On December 7, 2023, Justice Julia Ibrahim found him guilty of the lesser offense of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. She sentenced him to 16 years in jail, with the sentence backdated to his arrest date of August 10, 2019.
The Court of Appeal rejected Yew’s appeal against both conviction and sentence earlier this year in March.
Would this outcome influence how similar road-rage cases are treated in the future, or highlight deeper questions about proportionality and rehabilitation within the justice system? Share your thoughts in the comments.
