Back
2019 MarsdenLR 1049
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
ASMARANI GHAZALI – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: N-05(H)-492-10/2018]
A manifestly inadequate sentence for child abuse necessitates correction to reflect the seriousness of the offense and public interest protection.
Headnote:This judgment concerns an appeal against a manifestly inadequate sentence concerning a charge under the Child Act 2001. The respondent pleaded guilty to abusing a child, resulting in death. The court found the sentence inappropriate considering public interest and the act's nature. The sentence was substituted with 10 years of imprisonment, reflecting the severity of child abuse offenses.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal questioning the adequacy of the sentence. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. facts indicate child's death due to act of negligence. (Para 2) |
| 3. manifestly inadequate sentence warranting appeal. (Para 5) |
[1] This is an appeal by the prosecution (appellant) against sentence which was imposed on the accused (respondent) by the learned HighCourt Judge.
[2] The respondent was charged under s 302 of the Penal Code and an alternative charge under the Child Act 2001 (the Act) in the High Court. The respondent pleaded guilty to the alternative charge under the Act which reads as follows:
"Bahawa kamu pada 13 Jun 2018, antara jam lebih kurang 9.30 pagi hingga 10.00 pagi, di rumah alamat No. 27, Jalan TTJ 3/1 B, Taman Tuanku Jaafar, Sungai Gadut, Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, telah menganiayai XXXXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXXX (No K/P: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) dengan cara memasukkan sebiji cili berwarna hijau ke dalam mulut sehingga menyebabkan kematian, dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-kanak 2001 dibaca bersama s 31(5)(b) Akta Kanak-kanak 2001 dan kamu boleh dijatuhkan hukuman seperti yang diperuntukkan di bawah s 31(1) Akta Kanak-kanak 2001."
[3] The respondent pleaded guilty to the alternative charge when it was read to her and the learned High Court Judge convicted and sentenced her to 18 months jail term from the date of arrest on 21 June 2018.
[4] The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against sentence imposed by the learned High Court Judge as being manifestly inadequate, which is the appeal before us.
[5] After hearing oral submissions and perusing through the written submission of both parties, we agreed with the appellant that the sentence imposed by the learned High Court Judge was indeed manifestly inadequate. We therefore allowed the appeal by the prosecution, and set aside the sentence imposed by the learned High Court Judge and substituted the sentence to an imprisonment term of 10 years.
