MUHAMMAD HALIMI BIN MUHAMAD v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates that where a conviction for a child sexual offence under section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences against Children Act 2017 rests on a single complainant's evidence, an appellate court will quash the conviction if, on a proper appraisal, that evidence is found to lack credibility and nothing else sustains the charge.

This High Court decision at Kangar concerns an appeal against conviction and sentence for a child sexual offence under seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 (section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences against Children Act 2017). The appellant had been convicted by the Sessions Court and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment in respect of an incident said to have occurred at a hotel room in Arau, Perlis. The appeal challenged both the conviction and the sentence, the central issue being the credibility of the complainant, who was the core prosecution witness, and whether there were material contradictions in her account. Ordinarily an appellate court is slow to disturb a trial court's assessment of a witness's credibility, the trial judge having had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witness; but that deference yields where the assessment cannot be supported on the record.

The court examined how the Sessions Court had assessed the complainant's evidence and reconsidered that assessment in light of the whole record, including the alleged inconsistencies in her account of the events. Whereas the prosecution case depended almost entirely on the complainant's testimony, the High Court concluded, after weighing the evidence, that the complainant was not a credible witness and that her reliability as a witness was open to real doubt. On the court's assessment, her evidence ought not to have been accepted as the foundation of the conviction. Because that testimony was the linchpin of the charge, once it was found unsafe to rely upon there remained no other evidence on which the prosecution could establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court therefore held that there was merit in the appeal. It set aside the conviction and, consequentially, the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, and allowed the appeal. The judgment illustrates that where a conviction for a sexual offence rests on the uncorroborated evidence of a single complainant, an appellate court will set the conviction aside if, on a proper appraisal, that evidence is found to lack credibility, leaving nothing else to sustain the charge.