SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 MarsdenLR 530

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MNZMN – Appellant
Versus
PP & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: B-05(H)-34-01-2022 B-05(H)-35-01-2022 B-05(H)-36-01-2022 & B-05(H)-37-01-2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz,Aisyah Nabihah Mohd Yusri ,Respondent Advocate: Ng Siew Yee

The absence of evidence in the probation report regarding a child's rehabilitation suitability renders the sentencing order illegal, necessitating proper application of statutory provisions.

Headnote:(A) Child Act 2001 - Sections 67, 75, 91, and 98 - Sexual offences committed by a child - The appellant, charged with sexual offences, was sentenced to three years in Henry Gurney School - The court found that the probation report did not support the conclusion that the appellant was unsuitable for rehabilitation in an approved school - The Judicial Commissioner misdirected herself by not properly applying the statutory provisions regarding the suitability of the appellant for rehabilitation. (Paras 27, 30, 33, and 44)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, aged 15 at the time of the offences, was charged with multiple sexual offences against minors and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to three years in a detention school based on probation reports and recommendations from advisors. (Paras 6, 10, 20)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the probation reports did not substantiate the claim of the appellant's unsuitability for rehabilitation in an approved school, indicating a misdirection by the Judicial Commissioner. (Paras 33, 41)

Issues: The main issues were whether the probation report met statutory requirements and whether the punishment imposed was appropriate given the appellant's age and circumstances. (Paras 14, 20, 27)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of evidence in the probation report regarding the appellant's rehabilitation suitability rendered the imposed order illegal, emphasizing the necessity of proper application of statutory provisions. (Paras 33, 36)

Result: The appeal is unanimously allowed, and the order of the High Court is set aside and substituted with a community service order. (Para 45)

Table of Content
1. overview of sexual offence charges against minor. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. court proceedings and guilty pleas. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12)
3. leave application for appeal granted. (Para 14 , 15)
4. context of the appeals and stay of orders. (Para 18 , 19 , 22)
5. arguments presented by the appellant and respondent. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. court's interpretation of statutory provisions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. court's duty to balance punishment and rehabilitation. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
8. appellant's background and potential for rehabilitation. (Para 39 , 40 , 41)
9. court's decision on appropriate punishment. (Para 42 , 43)
JUDGMENT

Lim Chong Fong JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are four (4) related appeals before this Court as follows:

I. Criminal Appeals No.: B-05(H)-35-01/2020, B-05(H)-36-01/2020, and B-05(H)-37-01/2020 that originated from the Court for Children at Sepang, Selangor; and

II. Criminal Appeal No.: B-05(H)-34-01/2020 that originated from the Court for Children at Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

(collectively "Appeals")

[2] The Appeals are against the order imposed on sexual offences committed by a child.

[3] The Appellant who was 15 years old at the time has been charged in the Court for Children at Sepang as follows in the national language:

No. Kes: BK-84-21-08/2020

Pertuduhan:

Bahawa kamu pada 9 Julai 2020 jam lebih kurang 3.00 petang bertempat di no 12, Jalan Nusaputra 1/3C Bandar Nusaputra, di dalam Daerah Sepang, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah melakukan amang seksual fizikal ke atas seorang kanak-kanak perempuan bernama NNMN dengan menyentuh, meramas payudara dan telah cuba memasukkan jari ke dalam kemaluannya. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dituduh and dihukum di bawah s 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017.

No. Kes: BK-84-22-08/2020

Pertuduhan Pertama:

Bahawa kamu pada 2 Mac 2020 jam antara 4.00 petang di bumbung foyer Tamarind Square Cyberjaya di dalam daerah Sepang, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah melakukan amang seksual fizikal ke atas kanak-kanak dengan cara menyentuh bagi maksud mana-mana bahagian fizikal AA, dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017;

Pertuduhan Kedua:

Bahawa kamu pada 2 Mac 2020 jam antara 4.00 petang di bumbung foyer Tamarind Square Cyberjaya di dalam daerah Sepang, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan dengan sengaja telah melakukan persetubuhan yang bertentangan dengan aturan tabii iaitu dengan memasukkan zakar kamu ke dalam mulut AA tanpa kerelaannya atau bertentangan atau dengan meletakan ketakutan atau kematian kepada orang lain. Dengan itu, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 377C Kanun Keseksaan.

[4] Furthermore, the Appellant has been charged in the Court for Children at Petaling Jaya as follows in the national language:

No. Kes:BB-M3-84-53-08/2020

Pertuduhan:

Bahawa kamu pada 9 Julai 2020 jam lebih kurang 11.00 pagi di alamat no 12 Jalan LEP 7/6 Taman Lestari Putra, 43300 Seri Kembangan dalam daerah Petaling di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, dengan sengaja telah melakukan amang seksual fizikal ke atas kanak-kanak dengan cara memeluk, mencium, meramas buah dada, dan memegang kemaluan NKCK yang berumur 16 tahun 5 bulan tanpa kerelaannya. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017.

In The Court For Children At Sepang

[5] The three (3) charges proffered against the Appellant were heard together. These charges were read on two occasions on 14 August 2020 and 23 September 2020.

[6] The Appellant, who was represented by Counsel, understood the charges and pleaded guilty to all of them as charged.

[7] After having read the probation report produced by the welfare officer as well as having heard the recommendations of the two advisors appointe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top