Pesalah pertama sewajarnya dijauhkan daripada penjara dan bergaul dengan banduan-banduan yang lain yang berlatarbelakang pelbagai kesalahan jenayah yang serius...” [22] The risk of recidivism must also be considered. Research and judicial commentary suggest that incarcerating first-time child offenders alongside hardened criminals may lead to negative influences, increasing the likelihood of reoffending rather than fostering rehabilitation as articulated in Chan Sit Hoong v. PP [1974] 1 MLRH 415; [1975] 1 MLJ 261: '...In all the circumstances of this case, therefore, I was of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the Appellant was unduly harsh. This was his first offence. Sending him to prison where he would have mixed with other prisoners convicted of all sorts of offences might well have produced an adverse effect on the Appellant and instead of coming out of the prison a better man he might well have developed more criminal and antisocial tendencies. The public interest in case of R v. Ball (supra), may best be selved if the offender is turned from his criminal ways to honest living. Treating the Appellant leniently in the circumstances of this case and thus giving him a chance to turn away from crime was certainly not against but very much in the public interest... S/N jizYpXjKuk2i1Q6X8evW4g [23] Additionally, the concept of proportionality in sentencing requires that the Court considers not only the nature of the offence but also the individual circumstances of the offender. A rigid or excessive punishment for a first-time juvenile offender risks undermining the rehabilitative objectives that should guide the Court’s discretion. As emphasized in PP v. Hidayatul Akmal Azman [2022] 2 MLRH 86; [2020] 7 MLJ 447; [2020] 1 CLJ 562, the public interest is best served when a young offender is given the opportunity to reform, rather than being subjected to an environment that may harden criminal tendencies. "[47] This court is of the view that it is in public interest the respondent should be given the opportunity to be a good citizen and rehabilitate himself. In the event the respondent be imprisoned at a young age, the respondent be turned into a hardened criminal. [48] The respondent is a first-time offender. The recommendation from the Pegawai Akhlak is that a fine be imposed in accordance with s 91(1)(d) of the Child Act 2001. [49] As a child, it is possible that the respondent has not yet matured and was unable to recognise the consequences of his actions. [50] Thus, this court is of the opinion that the respondent should not be imprisoned and whipped. Instead, the respondent should be given the opportunity to become a good member of society." [24] In the present case, this Court finds that sentencing the PKK to Sekolah Tunas Bakti Taiping rather than to a facility such as Henry Gurney School is a proportionate and just response. This decision aligns with established judicial principles, legislative intent, and broader societal interests in ensuring that the PKK receive appropriate rehabilitative interventions. It also reflects this Court’s duty to balance deterrence with the opportunity for rehabilitation, recognizing that the ultimate goal of the juvenile justice system is to reform and reintegrate and not merely to punish. Guilty Plea as a Mitigating Factor [25] Another fundamental principle in sentencing is that a plea of guilt is a mitigating factor that must be accorded due weight. A guilty plea is not merely an admission of wrongdoing but it also signifies an offender’s acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and willingness to make amends. Furthermore, it serves to expedite judicial proceedings; conserving valuable time and resources while sparing witnesses from the burden of testifying. Courts have consistently recognized that an early plea of guilt may warrant a degree of leniency in sentencing in line with the rehabilitative objectives of juvenile justice. [26] In the present case, this Court has carefully considered the fact that PKK pleaded guilty with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of his plea. The Court is satisfied that his plea was entered voluntarily, without coercion or inducement, and that he fully understood the charge and its implications. This acknowledgment of culpability demonstrates a genuine sense of remorse and a willingness to reform, which must be considered when determining an appropriate sentence. [27] The Court finds support for this position in Pendakwa Raya v. Mohd Syahmi Mohd Fared & Yang Lain [2015] MLRAU 512, where the Court of Appeal emphasised that an immediate plea of guilt upon being charged reflects the accused’s remorse and recognition of their wrongdoing. In the instant case, PKK’s timely admission of guilt similarly underscores his acceptance of responsibility, further reinforcing the appropriateness of a rehabilitative rather than punitive approach. S/N jizYpXjKuk2i1Q6X8evW4g [28] Additionally, the Court also refers to Mimi Kamariah Majid, Criminal Procedure in Malaysia (3rd ed., University Malaya Press, 1999), where at page 388, the author states: "Should an offender repent, the court will be inclined to sentence him leniently because he is taken to have undergone a process of rehabilitation or reformation already. Reformation and rehabilitation is, after all, one of the aims of sentencing." [29] Guided by these principles, the Court is of the view that sentencing PKK to Henry Gurney School would be disproportionate and overly punitive in light of his genuine remorse. Instead, the Court deems it just and appropriate to place PKK in Sekolah Tunas Bakti Taiping, where he will be afforded the opportunity to undergo structured rehabilitation in a controlled environment. The Court further notes that placing PKK in Henry Gurney School would expose him to a more hardened criminal environment, which may be detrimental to his rehabilitation. Probation Report by JKM [30] In light of the inconsistencies identified in the Probation Report prepared by the JKM, this Court deems it necessary to address and clarify this matter to ensure that the findings and recommendations within the report are properly scrutinized. It is imperative that such reports maintain a high standard of accuracy and consistency, as they play a crucial role in guiding the Court’s determination of an appropriate and just order. [31] In the present case, this Court has carefully considered the recommendation of the probation officer, as reflected in the Probation Report, which suggested that PKK be placed in the Henry Gurney School. This recommendation was made on the basis that PKK had committed a serious offence and was no longer under the care of his parents, thereby placing him at a heightened risk of recidivism. However, while the Court acknowledges the seriousness of the offence, it is also bound to consider the broader principles governing juvenile justice, particularly the need for rehabilitation and reintegration, as emphasized under the Child Act 2001. [32] Section 91(1)(f) of the Act provides for the placement of a child offender in an institution such as the Henry Gurney School, but such an order must be made in accordance with Sections 67 and 75 of the Act. These provisions stipulate that a probation report must first be considered and that placement in such an institution must be specifically recommended by the probation officer. With regard to this matter, this Court has made a reference to the case of PP v. KM (A Child) & Anor [2009] 4 MLRH 673; [2010] 9 CLJ 605 in which Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim JC stated that: "From my reading of the provisions under ss 67 and 75 of the said 2001 Act once the probation officer makes a recommendation to send a child either to an approved school or to a Henry Gurney School, the court has to oblige and make the necessary order accordingly. Actually, those would appear to be the only avenues at the disposal of the court when it is minded to order a child either to an approved school or to a Henry Gurney School. Such an order must be preceded with a consideration and perusal of a probation report prepared on the child and the probation officer has to so recommend before the court can issue such an order. As such, the enabling and empowering provisions under s 91(1)(f) of the said 2001 Act must be read in tandem with the provisions as contained under ss 67 and 75 of the said 2001 Act. In other words, a court cannot issue either an order purporting to send a child to an approved school or to a Henry Gurnev School without the benefit of first perusing a probation report prepared on the child and in the absence of such recommendation by the probation officer in the said S/N jizYpXjKuk2i1Q6X8evW4g report. The absence of such recommendation emanating from the probation officer must of necessity be interpreted to mean that such corrective institutions are not suitable in the interest of the child's welfare. Therefore, prudence would dictate that the court ought not issue any order under s 91(1)(f) of the said 2001 Act entirely on its own volition without the critical inputs coming from the probation officer regarding the suitability of resorting to such a course of action." [33] This Court does acknowledge the inconsistencies within the Probation Report, as certain parts have been disputed by PKK. The following are the specific parts that PKK does not acknowledge as true: JB: Puan, PKK maklumkan yang bahagian profil kesalahan yang mengatakan juvana telah mula melakukan seks sejak umur 14 tahun tu tak benar. Mah: Part mana yang tak tally? Yang umur 14 tahun tu? Yang melakukan hubungan seksual tu? Pegawai JKM, maklumat berkenaan ini dapat daripada mana? JKM: Daripada penama sendiri Mah: Jadi, penama yang maklum? JKM: Masa saya tanya penama, dia datang pejabat saya. Saya tanya bila dia start buat? Dia kata tahun lepas. Jadi tahun lepas umur dia 15 tahun lah. Sebelum tu pun dia ada girlfriend dan pernah buat hubungan seks dan sekarang pun masih buat. Mah: Kenapa sekarang you tak mengaku? JKM: Tapi dia memang jelas ada love bite waktu dia datang pejabat saya Mah: Ada apa? JKM: Love bite. So, start tulah saya tanya pasal seksual. Mah: Okay tak apa yang seksual ni sebab pertuduhan harini berkenaan kesalahan dadah. Jurubahasa, sila bacakan laporan akhlak selanjutnya. JB: Juvana beritahu dalam ini banyak yang tak betul. Mah: Bahagian mana yang tak betul tu? JB: Nilai sikap dan tingkah laku. Juvana beritahu dia bekerja sepenuh masa tapi dalam laporan akhlak cakap dia kerja sambilan. Mah: Okay, selain daripada itu? JB: Juvana beritahu sewaktu JKM datang JKM ada tanya masih berkawan dengan kawan-kawan lama. Juvana beritahu dia sudah tidak berkawan dan sudah tidak menghubungi mereka. [34] The Court sought clarification from the JKM officer regarding the interview conducted with PKK, particularly concerning the language used, as the Court was concerned about the potential for miscommunication. The JKM officer informed the Court that the interview was conducted in Bahasa Melayu. However, due to the absence of an official interpreter, PKK’s cousin, who was present during the session, translated the interview into Cantonese for PKK. This fact was subsequently affirmed by PKK’s cousin in open court during the Fact and Order hearing where he acknowledged his presence during the interview and confirmed that he had acted as an interpreter. S/N jizYpXjKuk2i1Q6X8evW4g Mah: Waktu temu bual tu dalam bahasa apa? JKM: Saya bercakap Bahasa Melayu. Dia ada orang translate. Mah: So ada orang translatelah waktu tu? Patutnya tak ada isu misunderstanding. JKM: Sebab kami pihak JKM tak ada translator. Mah: So waktu tu yang hadir bersama ni adalah untuk bantu translate? JKM: Ye, dia ada bersama. Penjaga PKK: Ya, saya ada bersama. Dia dah tak ada bergaul dengan kawan-kawan lama. [35] Given these circumstances, the Court finds no basis to conclude that any misinterpretation or procedural irregularity occurred that would amount to an injustice against PKK. This Court is further satisfied that the translation process, as carried out, did not compromise the integrity of the interview or prejudice PKK’s understanding of the proceedings. [36] This Court also notes a material inconsistency in his statements regarding his alleged involvement in drug distribution. When questioned by the Court Adviser on the timeline of his drug use and whether he had engaged in drug trafficking, PKK denied any role in drug distribution, admitting only to personal drug consumption. However, this denial raises concerns as it appears to contradict his earlier stance during court proceedings. Penasihat 1: Saya nak tanya, sejak berapa lama you hisap barang? PKK: Lebih kurang bulan Jun tahun lepas. Penasihat 1: Jadi you hisap dan jual dadah? PKK: Tak ada jual dadah Mah: Tak ada jual dadah? Dalam Laporan Akhlak ni mahkamah tengok you ada jual dadah RM150. You tak nafikan pun dalam laporan akhlak yang you jual dadah RM150 tu. Kenapa you tak nafikan bahagian tu? Penasihat1: You boleh faham Bahasa Melayu ke atau you langsung tak faham? JB: Yang RM150 tu juvana beritahu dia beli. Penasihat 1: Saya nak tanya balik, you pernah jual tak? PKK: Tak pernah [37] This Court noted that initially, when the Probation Report was read back to PKK in Cantonese in open court during Fact and Order, he disputed several portions of the report but did not initially refute the section stating that he had sold drugs for RM150. It was only after being directly asked by the Court Adviser that PKK suddenly retracted this aspect of the report and denied any involvement in drug distribution. This inconsistency casts doubt on the reliability of PKK’s denial and necessitates a careful evaluation of his credibility. The Court finds that the timing of PKK’s denial raises reasonable concerns about whether it was a genuine assertion or merely an attempt to mitigate culpability upon realizing the potential consequences of his admission. As such, the Court must approach PKK’s assertions with due caution and give due weight to the evidence presented in the Probation Report alongside the circumstances surrounding his statements. S/N jizYpXjKuk2i1Q6X8evW4g [38] Nonetheless, while the probation officer has made such a recommendation in this case, this Court finds merit in the opinions of both appointed Court Advisers, who unanimously opined that committing PKK to the Henry Gurney School would be unduly harsh given the circumstances. This Court is particularly mindful that PKK, at 17 years old, is still within a crucial developmental stage where rehabilitation remains a viable and preferable option. Exposing PKK to an environment where he may interact with offenders involved in more severe criminal activities risks exacerbating rather than remedying his delinquency. Presence of a Legal Guardian [39] In the present case, the PKK was initially accompanied by his biological brother on the first mention date. However, on all subsequent proceedings, he was accompanied by his cousin. Upon inquiry by this Court, the PKK unequivocally confirmed that he had been residing with his cousin since the age of 13. Mah: Mahkamah nak tanya, Yong Seng Hoon, apa hubungan awak dengan Waijun? Penjaga PKK: Sepupu Mah: Sekarang ni Waijun tinggal dengan awak ke? Ke dengan siapa? Penjaga PKK: Betul. Dengan family saya. Mah: Waijun tahun ni umur berapa? PKK: 17 tahun Mah: Memang tak nak sekolah dah ke? PKK: Masalah kewangan. Terpaksa keluar bekerja. Mah: Saya tengok dekat laporan akhlak, parent dengan adik - beradik awak semua dekat KL. Kenapa awak seorang dekat sini? PKK: Sejak saya kecil parent dengan adik - beradik di KL bekerja. Saya seperti macam dibuang oleh keluarga. Itu sebab saya kena jaga sendiri. Saya kena kerja sendiri untuk bagi saya kehidupan dan duit. Mah: Dari kecil memang duduk dengan cousin? PKK: Sejak umur 13 tahun. Tinggal dengan cousin. [40] Further inquiries were made with the Social Welfare Department (Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat), whose officer informed the Court that the PKK’s parents had failed to provide any cooperation and remained uncontactable despite repeated attempts. The officer further stated that upon reaching out to the PKK’s biological brother, who was present during the first mention, it was made clear that neither he nor the parents wished to have any further involvement with the PKK. [41] Regarding to this matter, this Court has made a reference to Section 88(1) Child Act 2001 where it provides that: Parent or guardian required to attend