SAFUAN SAFRI BIN SAIFULBAHRI v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the sentencing approach to sexual offences against children under the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 and the weight the appellate courts give to the public interest over personal mitigation, declining to disturb sentences that reflect the gravity of the offences.

This Court of Appeal decision at Putrajaya is one of a set of consolidated appeals against sentence arising from convictions for sexual offences against a child. The appellant had been charged before the Sessions Court under provisions of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, including sections 14(a), 16, 26 and 27 of that Act, and was convicted on the charges. The convictions and sentences were affirmed by the High Court on appeal, and the appellant brought further appeals to the Court of Appeal directed at the sentences imposed. The Court of Appeal approached the appeals on settled sentencing principles, and in particular the primacy of the public interest in cases involving sexual crimes against children. It recorded that it had examined and given consideration to the appellant's plea in mitigation, but emphasised that in offences of this nature the public interest must always take precedence over the personal interests of the offender. Weighing the mitigation against the gravity of the offences and that overriding public interest, the court found no basis to interfere with the sentences that the Sessions Court had imposed and that the High Court had confirmed. The court's approach confirms that an appellate court will not disturb a sentence that properly reflects the seriousness of an offence against a child merely because mitigating personal circumstances are advanced, where the sentence falls within the range that the gravity of the conduct and the protection of children warrant. It unanimously dismissed the appellant's appeals against sentence and ordered that the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court, and affirmed by the High Court, for all the charges be maintained. The judgment is a useful illustration of the sentencing approach to sexual offences against children under the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, and of the weight the appellate courts give to the public interest over personal mitigation when reviewing such sentences.