TEO YI HONG v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the appellate approach to a conviction and sentence for physical sexual assault of a child under section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences against Children Act 2017 — deference to the trial judge's credibility findings, and a sentence assessed within the statutory range according to the severity of the act and the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors.

This High Court decision at Muar concerns an appeal against conviction and sentence, and a prosecution cross-appeal against sentence, in a child sexual-offence case. The appellant had been convicted by the Sessions Court under seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 (section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences against Children Act 2017) of committing physical sexual assault on a girl aged 12, and sentenced to four years' imprisonment and two strokes of the cane, with one year's police supervision after release under section 26 of the Act. The prosecution called four witnesses, including the complainant and her mother; the Sessions Court found a prima facie case, called the appellant to his defence, and at the close of the defence held that his bare denial did not raise a reasonable doubt, and convicted him.

On appeal the appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in finding a prima facie case and in rejecting his defence as a mere denial, and raised matters concerning the surrounding circumstances. The court, applying the principle that an appellate court is slow to disturb a trial judge's findings on credibility where the judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses, found no error warranting interference with the conviction.

On sentence, the court accepted that sexual offences against children must be dealt with severely, but observed that the severity of the act varies with the facts of each case, and that here there was no sign of violence. It held that four years' imprisonment and two strokes fell within the range of punishment for offences under section 14 of the Act, and that the Sessions Court had properly weighed the seriousness of the offence against the mitigation. The court dismissed both the appellant's appeal and the prosecution's cross-appeal, affirmed the conviction and sentence, and allowed a stay pending further appeal. The judgment illustrates the appellate approach to conviction and sentence under section 14(a).