SAFUAN SAFRI BIN SAIFULBAHRI v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates how the appellate courts approach sentencing across multiple charges of sexual offences against a child under the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, and the consistent priority given to the public interest, deterrence and the protection of children over personal mitigation.

This Court of Appeal decision at Putrajaya is one of the consolidated appeals against sentence brought by an appellant who had been convicted before the Sessions Court on a series of charges of sexual offences against a child. The charges were framed under the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, including sections 14(a), 16, 26 and 27 of that Act, and the convictions and the sentences imposed on all of them were affirmed by the High Court before the matter reached the Court of Appeal, where the appeals were confined to sentence. The Court of Appeal considered the sentences that had been imposed across the several charges and the appellant's plea for a reduction. It reiterated the principle, applied consistently in this area, that the public interest must always be given precedence over the personal interests of the offender in cases involving sexual crimes against children, an area in which the courts place particular weight on deterrence and the protection of the young. Having weighed the mitigation advanced against the seriousness of the offending, and finding no error in the approach of the courts below, the court concluded that there was no basis on which to interfere with the sentences. It unanimously dismissed the appeals against sentence and ordered that the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court for all the charges, as confirmed by the High Court, be maintained. The court's approach reflects that, in offences of this gravity against a child, a plea in mitigation, while it must be heard and considered, is unlikely to move an appellate court to reduce a sentence that the trial court and the High Court have already assessed as commensurate with the seriousness of the conduct and the need to protect the young, and it underscores the narrow compass within which appellate intervention on sentence operates. The judgment is a useful illustration of how the appellate courts approach sentencing across multiple charges of sexual offences against a child, and of the consistent priority given to the public interest and the protection of children over personal mitigation.