The court upheld the validity of plea bargaining in sentencing for child abuse, emphasizing the need for stringent enforcement of child protection laws.

JUDGMENT

Allan Suman Pillai SCJ:

Introduction

[1] Vladimir Covalenco (hereinafter referred to as the Accused) faces charges under s 31(1)(a) of the Child Act 2001 (Act 611). The charge alleged that, as the person responsible for the care of a female child named AF, he mistreated her, exposed her to harm, or negligently acted in a manner that could have caused her physical and emotional injury, or subjected her to circumstances that resulted in such harm through his actions.

[2] The charge levelled against the accused is detailed and set out as follows, forming the basis of the prosecution's case in this matter.

The Charge

Bahawa kamu, pada tarikh 30 Jun 2024 jam lebih kurang 8.00 pagi bertempat di Rumah No 908 Century Suria Service Apartment Mukim Kuah, di dalam daerah Langkawi, di dalam negeri Kedah Darul Aman, sebagai seorang yang mempunyai pemeliharaan terhadap seorang kanak-kanak perempuan bernama AF (No K/P: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) telah menganiaya atau mendedahkan kanak-kanak atau bertindak secara cuai dengan cara yang mungkin akan menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal dan emosi atau yang menyebabkan dianiaya atau didedahkan sedemikian. Oleh itu, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 31(1) akta yang sama.

[3] On 11 December 2024, after the Deputy Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the learned DPP) requested the charge to be read to the accused, the counsel representing the accused (hereinafter referred to as the learned counsel), informed the court of the accused's intention to submit an application for plea bargaining using Form 28A, as provided under s 172C of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC ).

[4] At the request of learned counsel for the accused, the proceedings were stood down to enable the application for admission Form 28A to be prepared and signed by the accused, for plea bargaining pursuant to s 172C of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC ). Pursuant thereto, the accused signed the application for plea bargaining in the Form 28A. The application for admission "Permohonan Bagi Pengakuan" Form 28A was also signed by the learned DPP and the learned counsel for the accused. (refer to Enclosure A). The specifics of this enclosure are outlined below.

"Bahawa kamu, pada tarikh 30 Jun 2024 ... boleh dihukum di bawah s 31(1) akta yang sama".

1. Saya, VLADIMIR COVALENCO (NO K/P: 690216-86-5013), dengan ini memohon kepada Mahkamah ini supaya tuduhan ditetapkan untuk perbicaraan bagi Tawaran Pengakuan berkenaan hukuman dan Pendakwa Raya hendaklah diberitahu mengenai permohonan ini.

2. Saya dengan sesungguhnya mengaku bahawa permohonan ini dibuat dengan sukarela selepas memahami jenis dan beratnya hukuman yang diperuntukkan di bawah undang-undang bagi kesalahan-kesalahan yang saya dipertuduh.

[5] The Accord and Satisfaction of Plea Offer "Penyelesaian Memuaskan Tawaran Pengakuan" was also read to the accused, who confirmed his understanding and consent by signing it. All involved parties have also endorsed the document, (refer to Enclosure B). The specifics of this enclosure are outlined below.

1. OKT mengaku salah terhadap pertuduhan di bawah s 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 sepertimana pertuduhan;

2. Pihak-pihak bersetuju hukuman yang akan dikenakan ke atas Tertuduh adalah penjara selama 5 tahun bermula daripada tarikh tangkap 2 Julai 2024;

3. Pihak-pihak bersetuju bahawa Tertuduh hendaklah menyempurnakan bon berkelakuan baik dengan seorang penjamin (tanpa cagaran) selama tempoh 2 tahun selepas Tertuduh dibebaskan daripada hukuman penjara; dan

4. Pihak-pihak bersetuju bahawa Tertuduh hendaklah menyempurnakan perintah khidmat masyarakat selama tempoh 36 jam dan ianya hendaklah disempurnakan dalam tempoh tidak melebihi 6 bulan setelah selesai tempoh penjara 5 tahun.

[6] When proceedings resumed, the learned DPP and the learned counsel presented the Form 28A (Enclosures A and B) to the court and during mitigation, appealed specifically for considerations regard