Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 MarsdenLR 1899

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
HENDRA MULANA – Appellant
Versus
PP & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: A-09-279-11-2023 & A-09-280-11-2023]

Petitioner Advocates:Jefri Jaafar,Muhammad Nazmi Hanafi with him ,Respondent Advocate: Eyu Ghim Siang

The court affirmed the conviction for soliciting child pornography, emphasizing the necessity for the accused to take reasonable steps to ascertain the victim's age, rejecting the defence of ignorance as unreasonable.

Headnote:(A) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 – Sections 2, 4, 8(b), 20, 26, and 27 – Conviction for requesting child pornography – Appellant convicted for soliciting child pornography from a minor, sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and whipping – The court found the Appellant's belief regarding the victim's age unreasonable given his background in Early Childhood Education – The Appellant's defence of ignorance regarding the victim's age was rejected as he had ample opportunity to ascertain it – The court emphasized the importance of protecting minors from exploitation. (Paras 2, 8, 19, 20, 39, 40)

(B) Defence – Presumption of age – Under s 20 of the Act, the accused must take reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the child – The Appellant's failure to meet the victim in person and reliance on misleading information was deemed insufficient to establish a valid defence. (Paras 28, 32, 36)

Facts of the case: The Appellant was charged with soliciting child pornography from a minor via WhatsApp. The victim, aged 12, testified that she had communicated with the Appellant, who believed she was older based on her social media profile. The Appellant was found guilty after a thorough examination of evidence.

Findings of Court: The court upheld the conviction, finding that the Appellant had knowledge of the victim's age and failed to take reasonable steps to verify it. The sentences were affirmed as appropriate given the nature of the offences.

Issues: The main issues included the Appellant's knowledge of the victim's age and the adequacy of his defence under the presumption of age in the Sexual Offences Against Children Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Appellant's belief regarding the victim's age was unreasonable, given his educational background and the clear evidence presented. The court emphasized the statutory presumption of age and the necessity for the accused to take proactive steps to ascertain the victim's age.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

JUDGMENT

Azmi Ariffin JCA:

Introduction

[1] The Appellant was tried in the Sessions Court at Taiping with four (4) offences of requesting for child pornography under s 8(b) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 .

[2] Particulars of the amended charges read as follows:

Sessions Court Case No: AB-62JSK-20-11/2019; HC Appeal: AB-42JSKS-2-02/2023
COA Appeal: A-09-279-11/2023
First Amended Charge
Bahawa kamu pada 14 Oktober 2019 di antara jam 0001hrs sehingga 2150hrs melalui media whatsapp (No. telefon: 60177954312) di alamat JT101 Jalan Kuala Kangsar, 34850, Changkat Jering dalam Daerah Larut Matang Negeri Perak telah meminta pornografi kanak-kanak daripada XXXXX, KPT: 070410-08-0180 yang merupakan seorang kanak-kanak di bawah umur 18 tahun semasa kejadian. Oleh demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 8(b) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen dan Akta yang sama.
Hukuman Penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih lima belas tahun dan hendaklah juga dihukum sebat tidak kurang tiga sebatan.
Second Amended Charge
Bahawa kamu pada 15 Oktober 2019 di antara jam 2325hrs sehingga 2359hrs melalui media whatsapp (No. telefon: 60177954312) di alamat JT101 Jalan Kuala Kangsar, 34850, Changkat Jering dalam Daerah Larut Matang Negeri Perak telah meminta pornografi kanak-kanak daripada XXXXX, KPT: 070410-08-0180 yang merupakan seorang kanak-kanak di bawah umur 18 tahun semasa kejadian. Oleh demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 8(b) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen dan Akta yang sama.
Hukuman Penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih lima belas tahun dan hendaklah juga dihukum sebat tidak kurang tiga sebatan.
Third Amended Charge
Bahawa kamu pada 16 Oktober 2019 di antara jam 0001hrs sehingga 2150hrs melalui media whatsapp (No. telefon: 60177954312) di alamat JT101 Jalan Kuala Kangsar, 34850, Changkat Jering dalam Daerah Larut Matang Negeri Perak telah meminta pornografi kanak-kanak daripada XXXXX, KPT: 070410-08-0180 yang merupakan seorang kanak-kanak di bawah umur 18 tahun semasa kejadian. Oleh demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 8(b) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen dan Akta yang sama.
Hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih lima belas tahun dan hendaklah juga dihukum sebat tidak kurang tiga sebatan.
Sessions Court Case No: AB-62JSK-21-11/2019; HC Appeal: AB-JSKS-03-02/2023; COA Appeal: A-09-280-11/2023
Fourth Amended Charge
Bahawa kamu pada 17 Oktober 2019 di antara jam 0001hrs sehingga 0250hrs melalui media whatsapp ( No. telefon: 60177954312) di alamat JT101 Jalan Kuala Kangsar, 34850, Changkat Jering dalam Daerah Larut Matang Negeri Perak telah meminta pornografi kanak-kanak daripada XXXXX, KPT: 070410-08-0108 yang merupakan seorang kanak-kanak di bawah umur 18 tahun semasa kejadian. Oleh demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 8(b) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen dan Akta yang sama.
Hukuman penjara tidak lebih lima belas tahun dan hendaklah juga dikenakan hukuman sebatan tidak kurang 3 sebatan.

[3] These cases were tried together.

[4] The Appellant pleaded not guilty to all the amended charges.

[5] In support of its case, the prosecution called thirteen (13) witnesses to testify against the Appellant.

[6] At the end of the prosecution case, the learned trial judge ordered the Appellant to enter his defence.

[7] The Appellant elected to give evidence under oath and he was the sole witness for the defence.

[8] At the end of the defence case, on 16 February 2023, the learned trial judge found the Appellant guilty and convicted him of the offences. The learned trial judge imposed the following sentences:

First Amended Charge:
The Appellant was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment from the date of conviction (16 February 2023) and 3 strokes of whipping.
Second

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 MarsdenLR 1899

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAHENDRA MULANA – AppellantVersusPP & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent[Criminal Appeal Nos: A-09-279-11-2023 & A-09-280-11-2023]

The court affirmed the conviction for soliciting child pornography, emphasizing the necessity for the accused to take reasonable steps to ascertain the victim's age, rejecting the defence of ignorance as unreasonable.

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
HENDRA MULANA – Appellant
Versus
PP & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: A-09-279-11-2023 & A-09-280-11-2023]