MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the application of the one-transaction rule to multiple sexual offences against a child under section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, the court holding the offences separate and distinct and upholding separate deterrent sentences.

This High Court decision is one of several consolidated appeals against sentence brought by an appellant convicted in the Sessions Court of numerous sexual offences against a child under section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 (Act 792), committed on separate occasions at the premises where he had access to the child. This record concerns the appeal relating to a further set of charges. A central issue was whether the offences were separate and distinct such that separate sentences were justified, or whether the one-transaction rule required the sentences to be treated as arising from a single course of conduct and made to run concurrently. The court held that the offences, though of the same character, were committed on distinct occasions and involved distinct criminal acts, so that they were properly regarded as separate and distinct offences for which separate sentences could be imposed. It reiterated the gravity that the Act attaches to offences against children — a twenty-year maximum and liability to whipping under section 14(a) — and that the public interest is the paramount sentencing consideration, so that mitigating factors personal to the offender carry limited weight against the severity of the offending. Reviewing the trend of sentencing under the Act, the court was not persuaded that the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court was excessive, illegal or otherwise improper, and considered that a deterrent sentence was warranted. It reasoned that where distinct criminal acts are committed on distinct occasions, each act violates the child's protection afresh and may attract its own sentence, so that treating them as a single transaction merely because they share a common character and location would understate the true extent of the offending. Consistency with the sentencing trend for comparable offences under the Act, rather than the offender's personal mitigation, governed the assessment. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal against sentence. The judgment illustrates the application of the one-transaction rule and the treatment of separate and distinct sexual offences against a child.