Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) KHALID REDZA BIN SHUIB 2. ) NURSHAFWANI BINTI KHALID REDZA

Case Significance

Illustrates sentencing for culpable homicide of a child under section 304(a) of the Penal Code within the 15-to-20-year range, and the application of the one-transaction rule: where two killings share no nexus in time, place or purpose, the sentences may be ordered to run consecutively.

This High Court decision at Seremban concerns sentencing on a plea of guilty to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and this record relates to the death of a young child. The accused had originally been charged with two separate offences of murder under section 302 of the Penal Code, tried together, arising from two deaths at the same address in Seremban; the bodies were later discovered in the vicinity of Gunung Angsi. After the prosecution had begun by calling its first witness, it offered two reduced charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) of the Penal Code, one in respect of each death. This case concerns the charge that the accused, with the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death, caused the death of a child in March 2022. The accused pleaded guilty to the reduced charge and was convicted. In sentencing, the court emphasised the seriousness of crimes committed against children and the need to protect the most vulnerable members of society, observing that appropriate punishment for such crimes must be seen to be done. It reviewed the sentencing trend for section 304(a) offences, which ranges between about 15 and 20 years' imprisonment, and considered the victim impact statement from the deceased's own mother. For this charge, the court imposed a sentence of 17 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest. On the question of whether the two sentences should run concurrently or consecutively, the court applied the one-transaction rule and the totality principle, testing for proximity of time and place and continuity of action and purpose; finding no nexus between the two killings, which occurred on different dates, it exercised its discretion to order the sentences to run consecutively. The accused appealed against the sentence. The court underscored that violence against children incenses society as a whole and that appropriate punishment must be seen to be done, treating that imperative as informing the placement of the sentence within the section 304(a) range.