GAZI SOHAL v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates appellate restraint in an appeal against conviction and sentence for a child sexual offence under section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017: where the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and the defence raised no reasonable doubt, the conviction stands, and a sentence of six years' imprisonment, two strokes and supervision was not disturbed as excessive.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, sitting in its appellate criminal jurisdiction, concerns an appeal against a conviction and sentence for a sexual offence against a child. The appellant had been convicted by the Sessions Court sitting as the Court for Sexual Crimes Against Children at Putrajaya of an offence under seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 (section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017), and had been sentenced to six years' imprisonment and two strokes of the cane, together with one year of supervision under section 27(1) of that Act. He appealed against both conviction and sentence, his counsel arguing on sentence that the punishment was too heavy and should be reduced.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. On conviction, it examined the manner in which the Sessions Court had assessed the evidence, including the defence advanced against the prosecution case, and was satisfied that the trial court had properly considered the whole of the evidence before finding that the defence had failed to raise a reasonable doubt. Finding no error in that evaluation, the court held there was no basis to disturb the conviction. On sentence, it was not persuaded that the term of six years' imprisonment and two strokes, with one year of supervision, was excessive, having regard to the gravity of an offence against a child under the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 and the deterrent purpose of that legislation. It accordingly maintained the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and dismissed the appeal. In declining to reduce the sentence, the court had regard to the protective aims of the specialised child-sexual-offences regime, under which the vulnerability of the child complainant and the need to deter such conduct weigh heavily, so that a term at the level imposed cannot be characterised as manifestly excessive merely because a lighter sentence might have been available. The judgment illustrates the appellate court's approach to a conviction under the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 and its reluctance to interfere with a sentence that reflects the seriousness of a child sexual offence.