XXXX (AC-84-6-06/2024)

Di dalam kes ini, kanak-kanak telah dituduh dengan pertuduhan seperti berikut: BAHAWA KAMU PADA 20 APRIL 2024 JAM LEBIH KURANG 6.00 PETANG, DI BAWAH RUMAH NO.22 JALAN SUNGAI TIANG, 36200, SELEKOH DI DALAM DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI DALAM NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN AMANG SEKSUAL FIZIKAL KE ATAS KANAK-KANAK NUR ZARA SOFFIA BINTI MOHD MARZUKY, NO. K/P: 181015-08-1188, YANG BERUMUR 5 TAHUN 6 BULAN, DENGAN CARA BAGI MAKSUD SEKSUAL MENYENTUH KEMALUAN KANAK-KANAK TERSEBUT. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN SUATU KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 14(a) AKTA KESALAHAN-KESALAHAN SEKSUAL TERHADAP KANAKKANAK 2017. HUKUMAN: HENDAKLAH DIHUKUM DENGAN PEMENJARAAN SELAMA TEMPOH TIDAK LEBIH 20 TAHUN DAN BOLEH JUGA DIHUKUM DENGAN HUKUMAN

Kanak-kanak telah dituduh pada 28 Jun 2024, pertuduhan telah dibacakan, dan isi kesalahan telah diterangkan kepada kanak-kanak dalam Bahasa Melayu, dan dalam bahasa S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g yang mudah difahami. Kanak-kanak telah faham pertuduhan dihadapinya, telah mengaku bersalah terhadap pertuduhan tersebut. Mahkamah seterusnya telah menangguhkan kes ke 31.7.2024 untuk Laporan Akhlak daripada Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat dan fakta hukum. Mahkamah telah membenarkan kanak-kanak diikat jamin dengan jaminan RM1000.00 dengan Ayah sebagai penjamin dan dengan syarat tambahan untuk kanak-kanak tidak mengganggu mangsa.

Pada 31 Julai 2024, pertuduhan dan hukuman dibacakan semula seperti di atas dengan Bahasa yang mudah difahami dan kanak-kanak mengakui faham dan masih mengaku bersalah Mahkamah telah berpuas hati bahawa kanak-kanak memahami sifat dan akibat pengakuan bersalah, terutamanya mengenai perintah yang bakal dikenakan sebagaimana dinyatakan di bawah undang-undang.

Seterusnya, fakta kes dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan dan ditandakan sebagai eksibit P1. Setelah dibacakan dan diterangkan kepada kanak-kanak dalam Bahasa Melayu, kanak-kanak mengakui benar fakta kes tersebut. Fakta kes sebagaimana yang dikemukakan dan diakui benar oleh kanak-kanak adalah seperti berikut: - 1) Pada 20.4.2024, jam lebih kurang 9.27 malam, satu Laporan Polis dibuat oleh ibu mangsa memaklumkan pada 20.4.2024, jam lebih kurang 6.30 petang, semasa ibu mangsa berada di rumah telah diberitahu oleh mangsa bahawa kemaluan mangsa telah dipegang oleh pesalah kana-kanak dengan menggunakan tangan kanan semasa berada dibawah rumah. 2) Pada 21.4.2024, jam lebih kurang 12.05 tengah malam, pesalah kanak-kanak telah ditangkap oleh Inspektor Al-Ikhsan Bin Borhan bersama anggota dari IPD Bagan Datuk di perkarangan Balas Polis Rungkup. 3) Hasil siasatang mendapati pesalah kanak-kanak telah pergi ke rumah mangsa untuk berjumpa dengan mangsa, kemudian telah menyentuh dengan tangan kanan kemaluan mangsa yang pada masa kejadian berumur 5 tahun 6 bulan.

Kanak-kanak juga telah mengakui benar kesemua gambar dan eksibit-eksibit lain yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan. Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa kanak-kanak mengaku bersalah dan telah memahami sepenuhnya sifat dan akibat pengakuan, maka pengakuan bersalah kanak-kanak diterima dan kanak-kanak didapati bersalah atas satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 14(A) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanakkanak 2017.

Seterusnya, Pegawai Akhlak telah mengemukakan laporan akhlak dan laporan tersebut telah diakui benar oleh kanak-kanak. Berdasarkan kandungan laporan akhlak tersebut, Pegawai S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g Akhlak membuat syor agar kanak-kanak menyempurnakan bon berkelakuan baik selama 2 tahun dan bapa dengan ditemani kanak-kanak hendaklah melaporkan diri di Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat yang berhampiran dengan tempat kediaman selaras dengan Seksyen 91(1)(b) dan 93(1)(a)(b) Akta Kanak-kanak 2001 (Pindaan 2016).

Di dalam rayuan mitigasinya, kanak-kanak telah memohon Bon berkelakuan baik tanpa cagaran dengan alasan baru berumur 14 tahun, masih belajar di Tingkatan 2, ditanggung oleh Ayah, Ibu tidak bekerja dan mempunyai seorang adik. Ini merupakan kesalahn pertama kanak-kanak dan berjanji tidak akan mengulangi kesalahan sebegini.

Pihak Pendakwaan memohon agar satu perintah yang sesuai diberikan kepada kanak-kanak atas alasan mangsa kejadian baru berumur 5 tahun dan akan mengalami trauma untuk satu tempoh yang Panjang dan turut menyatakan Bon Berkelakuan Baik adalah tidak mencukupi untuk memerikan pengajaran kepada kanak-kanak.

Mahkamah juga telah mendapat pandangan Penasihat-penasihat di mana Penasihat-penasihat mengakui kesalahan yang dilakukan adalah kesalahan berat namun mengambil kira Laporan Akhlak dan umur kanak-kanak, Penasihat-penasihat berpendapat bahawa kanak-kanak wajar diberi satu lagi peluang dan dengan demikian, bersetuju dengan syor Pegawai Akhlak.

Setelah mendengar, meneliti dan menimbangkan fakta kes, membaca Laporan Akhlak yang disediakan oleh Jabatan Kebajikan dan rayuan dari kanak-kanak sendiri, Mahkamah telah mengeluarkan satu Perintah Bon Berkelakuan Baik selama 2 tahun dibawah SEK. 91(1)(B) dan dibaca bersama SEK. 93(1)(A)(B) AKTA KANAK-KANAK 2001, dimana selain daripada Bon Berkelakuan Baik selama 2 tahun, kanak-kanak juga dengan ditemani ayah hendak melaporkan diri di Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat (JKM) yang berhampiran dan menjalani akviti-aktivit yang ditetapkan oleh JKM serta kanak-kanak juga perlu berjumpa dengan Pegawai Psikologi sebulan sekali sehingga Pegawai Psikologi mendapati tiada keperluan lagi untuk kanak-kanak berterusan untuk berjumpa dengan Pegawai Psikologi tersebut.

Pendakwa Raya tidak berpuas hati dengan hukuman yang dikenakan tersebut dan pada 14 Ogos 2024 telah menfailkan Notis Rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi atas hukuman tersebut.

Dalam menjatuhkan sebarang perintah yang bersesuaian dengan kanak-kanak, faktor utama yang perlu dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah adalah faktor kepentingan awam. Dalam S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g menjelaskan perkara ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes R v Ball 35 Cr. App. R 164 yang memutuskan bahawa:- “In deciding the appropriate sentence a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced, not only with the object of punishing crime, but also in the hope of preventing it. A proper sentence, passed in public, serves the public interest in two ways. It may deter others who might be tempted to trv crime as seeming to offer easy money on the supposition, that if the offender is caught and brought to justice, the punishment will be negligible. Such a sentence may also deter the particular criminal from committing a crime again, or induce him to turn from criminal ways to an honest life.”

Maka, adalah jelas bahawa kepentingan awam bukan hanya tercapai apabila hukuman yang berat dikenakan kepada sesuatu kesalahan yang telah dilakukan, tetapi dalam kes yang bersesuaian, kepentingan awam turut tercapai sekiranya hukuman/ perintah tersebut berjaya menginsafkan pesalah dan mengubah pesalah ke pangkal jalan yang betul. Dalam hal ini, adalah sesuai untuk merujuk kepada kes A Child v Public Prosecutor (and Another Appeal) [2020] MLJU 1394; [2020] 1 LNS 2113; [2020] 8 AMR 343; [2020] MLRHU 1127 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “[135] Public interest cannot be better served if a child, repentant of his criminal ways, decided to turn over a new leaf, seek a path of reform and come back to society, a useful citizen of the country and a good member of his family. I must say, that this is when the child is deserving and society and the courts must afford him that opportunity. [136] I have no hesitation to do so where the facts and circumstances warrant it.”

Mahkamah juga berpendapat bahawa kepentingan awam adalah satu konsep yang amat luas dan fleksibel, dan sama ada kepentingan awam telah tercapai apabila sesuatu hukuman/ perintah dijatuhkan dalam sesuatu kes adalah banyak bergantung kepada fakta kes itu sendiri. Dalam menjelaskan hal ini, Mahkamah dalam kes New Tuck Shen v PP [1982] 1 MLJ 27; [1982] CLJ (Rep) 606; [1981] 1 MLRH 227 memutuskan bahawa:- “Public interest varies according to the time, place and circumstances of each case including its nature and prevalence. What may be of public interest in one place may differ from another. Similarly inducement to turn from criminal ways into honest living S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g can take several forms and will have to depend to a greater extent on the attitude of the offender and his suitability for any particular type of reformation.”

Mahkamah juga berpendapat bahawa dalam mempertimbangkan kepentingan awam dalam menjatuhkan sebarang perintah bersesuaian terhadap kanak-kanak, Mahkamah juga tidak seharusnya mengabaikan terus kepentingan peribadi kanak-kanak tersebut. Pendekatan yang wajar digunakan Mahkamah adalah membuat imbangan di antara kepentingan awam dan kepentingan kanak-kanak tersebut dalam menentukan perintah yang wajar. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes PP v KM (A Child) & Anor [2010] 9 CLJ 605; [2009] AMEJ 0169; [2009] 4 MLRH 673 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “In that sense, s. 91(1) of the said 2001 Act does provide for an array of possible options from which the court may make an appropriate order depending on the facts and circumstances of the case before it. Section 91 of the said 2001 Act can be described as being both a ‘welfare-driven’ as well as a ‘justice-driven’ piece of legislation and it is left to the wisdom of the court in the proper exercise of its discretion, to determine what kind of an order or orders ought to be made to meet the demands created bv the circumstances of the case before it, bearing in mind always the twin purpose of ensuring that both the interests that impact on the welfare of the child offender and those impacting on the just expectation of society are duly considered and are sufficiently achieved.”

Mahkamah dalam hal ini turut merujuk kepada kes Teo Siew Peng & 4 Ors v Public Prosecutor [1985] 2 MLJ 125; [1984] 1 LNS 71; [1984] 2 MLRH 621 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “There is no doubt whatsoever that the offence of which the appellants were convicted is a very serious one. However, it is also established that in dealing with the individual offender the circumstances of the offence and the character and antecedents of the offender should also be taken into account. Apart from briefly mentioning that the interest of the accused should be taken into account in the sentence, the lower court does not appear, in my view, to have dealt fully with the character and antecedents of the appellants and, as earlier stated, with the reformative factor involved in sentencing.”

Oleh itu, secara konklusinya dalam menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap seorang kanak-kanak, Mahkamah walaupun budi bicara yang luas bagi menentukan hukuman mahupun perintah yang bersesuaian ke atas kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh kanak-kanak, namun begitu, dalam melaksanakan budi bicara tersebut, Mahkamah haruslah bertindak secara "judiciously" S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g dalam menentukan perintah yang sewajarnya diberikan berlandaskan prinsip-prinsip penghukuman yang relevan.

Ashworth dalam "Judicial Independence and Sentencing Reform in The Future of Sentencing" [1982] Cambridge University Institute of Criminology pada ms. 50, telah berkata: The purpose of discretion is certainly to allow the sentence to select the sentence which he believes to be the most appropriate in the individual case, considering both the facts of the case and any reports on the offender's character. The purpose of discretion is surely not to enable individual judges and magistrate to pursue purely personal sentencing preferences.

Selanjutnya, sesuatu hukuman yang dijatuhkan hendaklah berpaksi kepada proposi undang-undang umum bahawa sesuatu hukuman itu hendaklah setimpal ("proportionate") dengan keseriusan kesalahan yang dilakukan dan tahap kebertanggungjawaban pesalah atau pesalah-pesalah. Lantaran itu, demi mencapai "kesetimpalan hukuman", Mahkamah hendaklah memberikan pertimbangan yang saksama kepada faktor-faktor pemberatan ("aggravating factor") dan faktor-faktor peringanan ("mitigating factor").

Mahkamah diberi peluang untuk temu-bual kanak-kanak ini dimana jelas menunjukkan kanak-kanak ini walaupun umur hamper mencecah 14 tahun, namun persefahaman kanak-kanak masih lagi tidak matang dan naif. Kanaka-kanak juga bertubuh badan yang kecil dan tidak menunjukkan umur sebenar kanak-kanak. Hasil temubual bersama Pegawai Akhlak dari JKM juga menunjukkan kanak-kanak terpengaruh selepas melihat video yang tidak senonoh didalam telefon bimbit miliknya akibat pengaruh kawan yang tidak elok. Pendakwaan seharusnya ambil maklum dan cakna terhadap tahap pemikiran kanak-kanak pada usia sebegini yang mana sangat cepat terpengaruh sama ada perkara baik mahupun buruk. Namun, kanak-kanak kini tidak lagi menggunakan telefon bimbit.

Disamping itu, kanak-kanak ini juga turut merupakan seorang pelajar yang cemerlang disekolah dengan keputusan yang memuaskan. Kanak-kanak juga tiada sebarang rekod masalah disiplin dari sekolah. Kanak-kanak ini juga selalunya meluangkan masa bersama ibu dan suka memasak bersama ibu dan bercita-cita untuk mejadi seorang Chef terkenal.

Mahkamah juga telah mempertimbangkan Laporan Akhlak yang disediakan oleh Pegawai Akhlak. Laporan akhlak berperanan penting dalam prosiding Mahkamah Kanak-S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g kanak bagi membantu Mahkamah mencapai keputusan yang adil. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah dalam kes A Child (supra) memutuskan bahawa:- “[108] In order for the court to ascertain the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the offender or to the trivial nature of the offence or to any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, the court must obtain the assistance of the welfare officer to probe on these facts. This too comes in the form of a probation report ... [112] This probation report has indeed, a huge impact on the life of the young offender/child. As in medical prescriptions, a doctor diagnoses a patient of the nature and the extent of the illness suffered by the patient. Then the good doctor prescribes the proper treatment with or without medication. Unlike a medical treatment, the diagnosis is done by the probation officer (in our case, a welfare officer) but the final treatment or medication is decided by the court. It is of utmost importance to realise the contents of the probation report must be admissible, relevant and of good value. The probation officer is very much like a medical doctor in treating patients but in the context of social engineering and rehabilitation. The importance of the probation officer is akin to a social “medical doctor”. Hence in the yesteryears, a probation report had a huge influence on the decisions of the courts.”

23.

Mahkamah berpendapat, saranan Pegawai Akhlak untuk membantu kanak-kanak ke arah pemikiran positif dan kesanggupan keluarga untuk menerima kembali kanak-kanak dan membantu beliau untuk pulih seperti sediakala, adalah selaras dengan salah satu objektif Akta Kanak-kanak 2001 digubal. Undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa dalam memutuskan sesuatu hukuman/ perintah, Mahkamah juga perlu mempertimbangkan objektif statut tersebut digubal. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes PP v Prolific Yield Sdn Bhd [2021] 10 MLJ 637; [2021] 6 CLJ 294; [2021] 4 MLRH 55 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “[27] I will add another factor to this list. To my mind, in considering whether public interest is served by the sentence to be imposed, the court cannot but must have regard to the objective of the relevant statutory provision. For it is only when this is done that one can truly say whether the public interest which is reflected in the objective of the said statutory provision is really given a consideration to. S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g [28] The preamble to the Act states that it is ...”

Mahkamah merujuk kepada mukadimah (preamble) Akta Kanak-kanak 2001 yang dengan jelas memperuntukkan peranan institusi keluarga dalam membentuk sahsiah seseorang kanak-kanak seperti berikut:- “MENGAKUI bahawa keluarga merupakan kumpulan asas dalam masyarakat yang menyediakan suasana semula jadi bagi pembesaran, penyaraan dan kebajikan semua anggotanya, khususnya kanak-kanak, supaya mereka boleh membesar dalam suasana aman, bahaqia, kasih sa yang dan persefahaman untuk memperoleh keyakinan penuh, maruah dan nilai diri seseorang manusia: MENGIKTIRAF peranan dan tanqqunqjawab keluarqa dalam masyarakat. supaya mereka diberi bantuan yang perlu untuk membolehkan mereka menunaikan tanggungjawab mereka sepenuhnya sebagai sumber pemeliharaan, penyaraan, pemulihan dan perkembangan kanak-kanak dalam masyarakat: MAKA, OLEH YANG DEMIKIAN, PERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut ...:”

Malah, peranan institusi keluarga dalam membantu seseorang Tertuduh untuk pulih ke pangkuan jalan yang betul dari segi emosi, ahklak dan kerohanian sememangnya pernah diambil kira mahkamah dalam kes-kes yang bersesuaian. Sebagai contohnya, dalam kes PP v Mashaifee Mohd Zaki [2017] MLJU 581; [2016] 1 LNS 1825; [2017] MLRHU 392, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “The accused also has very good family support (family was present at trial) and this factor is important in ensuring that the accused will turn over a new leaf. Every opportunity should be given to the accused to do so.”

Dalam hal ini, setelah perbincangan dengan Penasihat-penasihat, mahkamah mendapati perintah yang diberikan menjadi pilihan sebulat suara Mahkamah Kanak-kanak di mana Mahkamah Kanak-kanak berpendapat bahawa prinsip penghukuman yang berbentuk pemulihan dan rehabilitasi adalah bersesuaian dengan fakta latar belakang kes sebagaimana yang dibincangkan di atas berbanding prinsip penghukuman berbentuk deteren dan pencegahan. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes PP v Muhammad Fiqry Jafri & Anor [2021] 9 MLJ 915; [2021] 4 CLJ 552; [2021] AMEJ 0095; [2021] 3 MLRH 703 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g “[61] In R v. James Henry Sargeant [1974] 60 Cr App R 74, the appellant pleaded guilty to affray and was sentenced by the trial judge to two years’ imprisonment. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Lawton stated as follows: What ought the proper penalty to be? We have thought it necessary not only to analyse the facts, but to apply to those facts the classical principles of sentencing. Those classical principles are summed up in four words: retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. Any judge who comes to sentence ought always to have those four classical principles in mind and to apply them to the facts of the case to see which of them has the greatest importance in the case with which he is dealing... Finally, there is the principle of rehabilitation. Some 20-25 years ago there was a view abroad, held by many people in executive authority, that short sentences were of little value, because there was not enough time to give in prison the benefit of training. The view is no longer held as firmly as it was. This young man does not want prison training. It is not going to do him any good. It is his memory of the clanging of prison gates which is likely to keep him from crime in the future...”

Keputusan Mahkamah ini juga adalah selaras dengan keputusan Mahkamah dalam kes A Juvenile v PP [2003] 1 CLJ 171; [2002] 3 MLRH 285 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “The parents wanted a chance to look after the juvenile and with such family support the juvenile might just do well in his study and in his future undertakings. The juvenile is genuinely contrite as the probation report shows and was very worried that he would not be allowed to continue his study if his school found out what happened. The learned magistrate dismissed the idea of letting the parents take care of the child because the offence of theft is a serious offence as can be seen by the mandatory minimum sentence of one year and the maximum of seven years. Just because the offence of theft of a vehicle is serious should not disentitle the parents to take care of the juvenile. The learned magistrate should weigh the alternatives, that is of sending the juvenile to the Henry Gurney School or of letting the parents take care of the juvenile, to see which is better. The seriousness of the offence does not weigh much nor the rampancy of such offence. It is in the interest of the public that the juvenile realized his mistake which he does and that he be properly educated so that he will not be a bother in the future which letting his parents take care of him will provide.” S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g

Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Teo Siew Peng (supra) di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “Now, in respect of each of the appellants here, there is a favourable probation report. The Probation Service is ready to undertake their supervision if the appellants are placed on probation. The matter for consideration is whether, in order to give the best chance of realizing the object of turning the appellants into good citizens, they should be sent to prison or given another chance to turn over a new leaf, behave themselves and keep out of trouble having regard, as earlier observed, to the fact that all of them were young offenders at the time of the commission of the offence. The Smith case laid emphasis that the public have no greater interest than that young offenders should become good citizens. Having regard to the circumstances of the offence, the character and antecedents of each of the appellants and the probation reports, I am of the opinion that the object of turning the appellants into good citizens could be better achieved by not sending them to prison and imposing whipping at the same time. It is noted that each of them had been in custody for over 80 days. This no doubt, having regard to the evidence before this court, would have had a salutary effect on each of the appellants.”

Disamping faktor-faktor utama yang dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah juga telah mengambil kira faktor-faktor sampingan berikut dalam membuat perintah yang sewajarnya terhadap kanak-kanak.

Mahkamah ini telah melihat dengan jelas bahawa kanak-kanak faham akan pertuduhan dan hukuman yang dibacakan dan kanak-kanak "telah membuat pengakuan bersalah dalam keadaan sedar, tanpa apa-apa syarat (understand the nature and consequences of his guilty plea)". Ini menunjukkan kanak-kanak insaf akan kesalahan yang telah dilakukan dan mengaku bersalah atas keinsafan tersebut tanpa melengahkan masa mana-mana pihak terutamanya Mahkamah. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Rayuan PP v Mohd Syahmi Mohd Fared & Yang lain [2015] MLJU 994; [2015] 1 LNS 328 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “Mereka mengaku bersalah sebaik sahaja ditawarkan pertuduhan, ini menunjukkan keinsafan mereka.” S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g

Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada buku “Mimi Kamariah Majid. (1999). Criminal Procedure in Malaysia (3rd ed.). Kuala Lumpur: University Malaya Press” di mana penulis di muka surat 388 menyatakan bahawa:- “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”

Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Raja Izzuddin Shah v Public Prosecutor [1979] 1 MLJ 270; [1978] 1 LNS 165; [1978] 1 MLRH 248 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa: “Considering all the facts before the Court I have come to the conclusion that the public interest is in no way better served by committing the appellant to prison. The primary purpose of punishment is reformatory and it is clear in this case that the appellant has realised the fact that notwithstanding his status he is not above the law. He has also clearly stated that he has repented and would not make the same mistake again. Under the circumstances it is my opinion that the public interest is best served by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment and substituting therefor an order under s. 294(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code that the appellant enter into a bond with one surety in the sum of one thousand dollars for a period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.”

Usia kanak-kanak semasa melakukan kesalahan ini dan perintah dijatuhkan adalah 14 tahun. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa perintah pemenjaraan atau tahanan di institusi seharusnya menjadi pilihan terakhir sekiranya kanak-kanak tidak dapat dipulihkan melalui perintah lain yang sesuai. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada seksyen 96(2) Akta Kanak-kanak 2001 yang memperuntukkan bahawa:- “(2) A child aged fourteen years or above shall not be ordered to be imprisoned if he can be suitably dealt with in any other way whether by probation, or fine, or being sent to a place of detention or an approved school, or a Henry Gurney School, or otherwise.”

Manakala, seksyen 75(1) Akta Kanak-kanak 2001 memperuntukkan bahawa:- “(1) If-

(a)a child is found guilty of any offence punishable with imprisonment; S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g

(b)the probation report submitted to the Court For Children shows that the child is not suitable to be rehabilitated in an approved school; and

(c)it appears to the Court For Children-

(i)that the offence committed is serious in nature; and

(ii)by reason of the nature of the child’s criminal habits and tendencies it is expedient that the child be subject to detention for such term and under such instruction and discipline as appears most conducive to his reformation and the repression of crime, the Court For Children shall, after considering the probation report, send the child to a Henry Gurney School.”

Mahkamah dalam kes ini telah merujuk kepada laporan akhlak yang telah disediakan oleh pegawai akhlak dan mendapati tiada sebarang indikasi bahawa KANAK-KANAK ini mempunyai tabiat atau kecenderungan jenayah yang memerlukan pemulihan di sekolah yang diluluskan atau di Sekolah Henry Gurney. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes PP v KM (A Child) (Supra) di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “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 Henrv Gurnev School without the benefit of first perusing a probation report prepared on the child and in the absence of such recommendation bv the probation officer in the said 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 S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g 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.”

37.

Hukuman pen;ara adalah tidak sesuai bagi pesalah pertama vang mana suatu tempoh pemen;araan bukanlah ;alan penvelesaian tetapi akan menimbulkan kesan vang berat pada Tertuduh/Pemohon memandanqkan dia bukanlah seorang pesalah ‘hardcore’ vang sering keluar masuk pen;ara ...

Pesalah pertama sewajarnya dijauhkan daripada penjara dan bergaul dengan banduan-banduan yang lain yang berlatarbelakang pelbagai kesalahan jenayah yang serius ... Seperti mana diputuskan di dalam kes Chan Sit Hoon v PP (1975) 1 MLJ 261 (muka surat 262) di mana Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan bahawa: ‘...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 eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g

Malah, Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes PP v Hidayatul Akmal Azman [2020] 7 MLJ 447; [2020] 1 CLJ 562; [2019] MLRHU 882, di mana pesalah kanak-kanak dalam kes tersebut telah dituduh di Mahkamah Kanak-kanak bagi kesalahan merogol di bawah seksyen 376 Kanun Keseksaan. Pesalah kanak-kanak mengaku bersalah dan Mahkamah Kanak-kanak mengenakan denda RM1,000.00 gagal bayar 3 bulan penjara terhadap pesalah kanak-kanak. Dalam menolak rayuan pihak pendakwaan terhadap perintah tersebut, Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahawa:- “[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.”

Oleh itu, berdasarkan nas-nas diatas, tidak wujudnya suatu "hard and fast rule" apa yang dianggap sebagai suatu "hukuman yang setimpal" atau sebaliknya. la bergantung ke atas fakta dan keadaan kes masing-masing. Apabila undang-undang tidak menetapkan penalti kepada sesuatu kesalahan tertentu, kebiasaannya perbezaaan hukuman yang dikenakan oleh mahkamah akan berlaku kerana fakta dan keadaan memerlukan pertimbangan yang berbeza (lihat PP v. Shahrul Azuwan Adanan & Anor [2013] 2 CLJ 686).

Di dalam kes Abdul Karim v. Regina [1954] 1 LNS 3 yang mana mahkamah melalui Brown Ag CJ mengatakan trend untuk menetapkan sesuatu hukuman standard mengikut "jenis kesalahan" perlu dielakkan oleh mahkamah. Hukuman perlulah berdasarkan kepada fakta yang ada di hadapan mahkamah dan bukan mengikut trend hukuman di bawah "jenis kesalahan". Berikut adalah apa yang dikatakan oleh beliau: S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g In the matter of punishment, the "type of offence" is the concern of the Legislature, which has provided the maximum punishment which can be inflicted for a serious offence of that type. The particular offence and the particular offender, are the concern of the court, whose business it is to decide what punishment is merited upon the facts of the individual case within the limits which the legislature has provided. Any tendency to standardise punishment for any type of offence is to be deplored because it means that the individual offender is being punished not upon the facts of his particular case but because he has committed an offence of that type.

Pendek kata, sesuatu hukuman yang baik seharusnya mempunyai kesan pencegahan bukan sahaja kepada pesalah dari mengulangi kesalahan yang sama tetapi juga kepada orang lain dari mengikuti jejak langkahnya. Pendekatan yang betul adalah untuk mendapatkan perseimbangan, sebaik mungkin yang boleh, di antara kepentingan awam dan kepentingan pesalah. Lord Goddard LCJ dalam kes Rex v. Gronkowski yang dirujuk di dalam kes PP lwn. Abdul Halim Ishak & Satu Lagi [2013] 9 CLJ 559 telah memberikan satu nasihat seperti berikut: The judge must consider the interests of justice as well as the interests of the prisoners. It is too often, nowadays, thought, or seems to be thought, that the interests of justice mean only the interests of the prisoners.

Sewaktu menjatuhkan hukuman, mahkamah mestilah menimbangkan semua hal keadaan dan bukan faktor-faktor peribadi pesalah yang tidak ada kaitan dengan kesalahan seperti kesusahan kepada pesalah dan keluarga jika dia dipenjarakan. Perkara-perkara ini, harus difikirkannya sebelum melakukan kesalahan tersebut. Namun begitu, atas sebab-sebab munasabah, adalah perlu juga untuk "temper justice with mercy" dan keseimbangan dicapai antara rasa simpati kepada pesalah dan kesakitan dan kedukaan yang didatanginya kepada mangsa atau kecelakaan yang berlaku kepada masyarakat.

Mahkamah ini telah mengambil kira prinsip menjatuhkan hukuman dalam mempertimbangkan hukuman yang sesuai dalam kes ini. Bermula dengan kes Mohamed Jusoh bin Abdullah and Anor. v. PP [1947] CLJU 73; [1947] MLJ 130, Willan CJ menyatakan: S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g "In our view no sentence can be assessed by a simple mathematical formula. Many factors must be taken into account according to the circumstances of each individual case. In that respect we would draw attention to the matters which should be taken into account in fixing punishments as set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (Hailsham Edition) volume 9, para 365: 'The Court, in fixing the punishment for any particular crime, will take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender, the provocation which he has received, if the crime is one of violence, the antecedents of the prisoner up to the time of sentence, his age and character.'"

Di dalam kes PP v. Ali bin Ahmad [2020] 1 CLJ 548; [2019] 11 MLJ 485, mahkamah telah memutuskan: "[16] In Tan Lay Chen v. Public Prosecutor [2000] 4 CLJ 492, [2001] 1 MLJ 135; Augustine Paul J (as His Lordship then was) made the following observation: The phrase 'pass sentence according to law' in the subsection means that the sentence imposed must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles (see Re Chang Cheng Hoe & Ors [1966] 1 LNS 155; [1966] 2 MLJ 252; Public Prosecutor v. Jafa bin Daud [1981] 1 LNS 28; [1981] 1 MLJ 315; Philip Lau Chee Heng v. Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 CLJ Rep 144; [1988] 3 MLJ 107). The assessment of a sentence in accordance with judicial principles clearly contemplates, inter alia, a consideration of the mitigating circumstances in favour of the person to be sentenced. It is generally accepted that an accused person should be given credit or discount for pleading guilty (see Sau Soo Kim v. Public Prosecutor [1975] 1 LNS 158; [1975] 2 MLJ 134; Public Prosecutor v. Sulaiman bin Ahmad [1993] 1 MLJ 74; Public Prosecutor v. Ravindran & Ors [1992] CLJU 47; [1993] 1 MLJ 45).However, this is not a strict rule as the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse to grant any discount in an appropriate case (see Zaidon bin Shariff v. Public Prosecutor [1996] 4 CLJ 441; [1996] MLJU 159; Lee Say & Ors v. Public Prosecutor [1985] 2 CLJ 155). The severity of the offence committed may outweigh the mitigating affect of a guilty plea (see Loh Hock Seng v. S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g Public Prosecutor [1979] CLJU 48; [1980] 2 MLJ 13, Public Prosecutor v. Oo Leng Swee & Ors [1981] CLJU 205; [1981] 1 MLJ 247). Where public interest demands a deterrent sentence in the circumstances of a particular case, then the effect of a guilty plea must also give way (see Sim Gek Yong v. Public Prosecutor [1995] 1 SLR 537; R v. Costen [1989] 11 Cr App R (S) 182). Thus, there can be no automatic rule that a guilty plea on its own entitles an accused to a lesser punishment (see Public Prosecutor v. Govindnan a/l Chinden Nair [1998] 2 CLJ 370; [1998] 2 MLJ 181).... The grounds of judgment must therefore show why the guilty plea cannot, on the facts of the case, be considered as a mitigating factor. Failure to do so will lead to the criticism, as in this case, that the plea has not been taken into account in imposing sentence. In this case the learned sessions court judge had not explained why he had disregarded the guilty plea, and, by the same process of reasoning, the clean record of the accused. This is a misdirection in law." [Penekanan ditambah]

Terkini, Mahkamah mengambil kira prinsip penghukuman dalam kes Letitia Bosman v. Public Prosecutor & other appeals (No 1) [2020] 8 CLJ 147; [2020] 5 MLJ 277 yang menyatakan: "[125] In passing sentence, the court takes into consideration the mitigating and aggravating factors in order to ensure that the sentence is in accordance with the law. Passing a sentence according to law means the sentence imposed must not only be within the ambit of the sentence period stipulated but also assessed and passed according to established judicial principles (see Jafa bin Daud at p 316 of the judgment of Mohamed Azmi J)."

Perintah Perintah Bon Berkelakuan Baik selama 2 tahun dibawah SEK. 91(1)(B) dan dibaca bersama SEK. 93(1)(A)(B) AKTA KANAK-KANAK 2001, dimana selain daripada Bon Berkelakuan Baik selama 2 tahun, kanak-kanak juga dengan ditemani ayah hendak melaporkan diri di Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat (JKM) yang berhampiran dan menjalani akviti-aktivit yang ditetapkan oleh JKM serta kanak-kanak juga perlu berjumpa dengan Pegawai Psikologi sebulan sekali sehingga Pegawai Psikologi mendapati tiada keperluan lagi S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g untuk kanak-kanak berterusan untuk berjumpa dengan Pegawai Psikologi tersebut, yang dijatuhkan ke atas kanak-kanak adalah difikirkan wajar, memadai dan seimbang sebagai pengajaran dan dengan harapan agar kanak-kanak insaf dan tidak lagi mengulangi kesalahan yang sama dan secara tidak langsung memberi satu amaran kepada yang lain agar tidak ada lagi perbuatan seperti ini. ………..tt……… ASHVINII THINAKARAN

6.

5.2024 S/N eelimd2d3U2RjuvB6yUi3g