JUDGMENT

Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah J:

[1] Soo Ah Lai ("the 1st appellant"), Yap Siew Ling ("the 2nd appellant") and Yap Siew Lee ("the 3rd appellant") were charged with three separate charges under s 13 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 ("ATIPSOM 2007") and were jointly tried together. The charges against the appellants were similar and read as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 18 February 2012 jam lebih kurang 3.30 petang di No 139, Jalan 2/62, Bandar Menjalara, Kepong di dalam Daerah Sentul, dalam Wilayah Persekutuan, Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur telah memperdagangkan CHHUM POV PP: N0738836 berumur 28 tahun bagi maksud eksploitasi dengan penggunaan kekerasan atau bentuk paksaan yang lain terhadap CHHUM POV PP: N0738836 dan dengan demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 13 Akta Antipermerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007".

[2] At the end of the prosecution case, the learned Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ("HMS") had found that a prima facie case had been made out and had called on the three appellants to enter upon their defence. The appellants had elected to give their evidence on oath. At the end of the defence case, the learned HMS found that the appellants had failed to raise any reasonable doubts as to the truth of the prosecution's case. The learned HMS had also found that that the prosecution had proven its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and had found the appellants guilty on their respective charges and had convicted them accordingly. After hearing and considering the mitigation of the appellants, the learned HMS had sentenced each of the appellants to four years imprisonment.

[3] Being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned HMS, the appellants have appealed against the "keseluruhan keputusan tersebut." The court notes that nowhere in the petition of appeal is there any ground to the effect that the sentence imposed was excessive and should be reduced. From this, the court understands that the appellants' appeals are in fact appeals against their convictions and the sentences that were consequently imposed following their convictions on the charges.

Brief Facts Of The Case

[4] The complainant, Chhum Pov PP: N0738836 (PW1) is a 29 year old Cambodian national. It is not in dispute that she had entered Malaysia legally as a domestic maid on the 23rd although she was uncertain of the month or the year. PW1 was collected from the agent by the 1st and 3rd appellants. According to her Contract of Employment, her employer is Yap Siew Ling, the 2nd appellant. However, from the evidence of the complainant, it would appear that she regarded all three appellants as her employers. She stayed at the employer's house where her daily tasks would include washing the clothes, washing the dishes, cleaning the "cermin", the toilets, mopping the floor and ironing the clothes. She was not required to do any cooking.

[5] Although the complainant was initially treated well, she was later "exploited" by the appellants through various bad treatment, which included:-

i. Being forced to sleep merata-rata in the kitchen and in an area outside the kitchen which although roofed, was without walls and was used as a store for storing household and kitchen appliances;

ii. Not being given basic amenities for sleeping such as a pillow and a blanket;

iii. Being forced to work without adequate rest from as early as 5.00am to 2.00am daily;

iv. Not being given proper food;

v. Being tortured and beaten by the appellants through various ways such as being beaten on both legs with a long pole, being beaten with a spatula, a step ladder, having her hair pulled, having her face beaten with a toilet brush, being slapped and being thrown on the floor and then kicked in the chest; and

vi. Being forced out of the house and left to sleep under the tree at the back of the house.

[6] Dr Samir Imran (PW6) had examined the complainant at Hospital Selayang on 19