/akn/my/judgment/magistrates-court/2026/ba896d9e-bdef-4af4-8a06-268db1ab0d8b
Magistrates Court of Malaysia26 Jun 2026JL-84-2-02/2026
The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
Not yet cited by a later decision.
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
“sistent with the admitted prosecution facts. [14] In determining the appropriate order, this Court is guided by the legislative purpose of the Child Act 2001, which is reflected in its long title as "An Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the care, protection and rehabilitation of children." The Act there”
“f the child. [9] Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 a) Pursuant to section 91(1)(f) of the Child Act 2001, the child shall be sent to Sekolah Tunas Bakti Taiping for a period of three (3) years. b) Upon completion”
“and the exhibits tendered by the Prosecution. [5] Being satisfied that the plea was unequivocal and voluntary, the Court accepted the child's plea of guilty to the offence under section 376(1) of the Penal Code. Before determining the appropriate order, the Court considered the Social Report prepared by the Probation O”
“d by the legislative purpose of the Child Act 2001, which is reflected in its long title as "An Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the care, protection and rehabilitation of children." The Act therefore places primary emphasis on the care, protection, rehabilitation and welfare of the child. [15] However”
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Text
1 IN THE SESSION COURT AT PENGERANG IN THE STATE OF JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM KES NO: JL-84-2-02/2026 BETWEEN MUHAMMAD ROSAZAHAR ASYRAAF BIN ROSLAN AND PENDAKWA RAYA GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] On 4 February 2026, the child was charged with the following offence: “Bahawa kamu pada 27/01/2026, jam lebih kurang 8.00 malam di kawasan Taman Permainan Di Jalan Sebong 1, Bayu Damai, dalam daerah Pengerang, dalam Negeri Johor Darul Ta’zim, telah merogol xxxx (No. Kp: xxxx), yang berumur 12 tahun 2 bulan ketika kejadian. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan. Hukuman Penjara selama tempoh yang boleh sampai dua puluh tahun dan hendaklah juga dikenakan sebat. Hukuman bagi kanak-kanak: a. memberikan amaran kepada kanak-kanak dan melepaskan kanak-kanak itu; 14/07/2026 00:27:42 JL-84-2-02/2026 Kand. 13 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 b. melepaskan kanak-kanak itu apabila dia menyempurnakan suatu bon untuk berkelakuan baik dan mematuhi apa-apa syarat yang dikenakan oleh mahkamah; c. memerintahkan supaya kanak-kanak itu diletakkan dalam pemeliharaan seseorang saudara atau orang lain yang layak dan sesuai: i. selama apa-apa tempoh yang hendaklah ditetapkan oleh mahkamah. ii. dengan apa-apa syarat yang dikenakan oleh mahkamah. d. memerintahkan supaya kanak-kanak itu membayar denda, pampasan atau kos; e. membuat suatu perintah percubaan di bawah seksyen 98; f. memerintahkan supaya kanak-kanak itu dihantar ke suatu sekolah diluluskan atau sekolah Henry Gurney; g. mengenakan ke atas kanak-kanak itu, jika dia berumur empat belas tahun ke atas dan kesalahan itu boleh dihukum dengan hukuman pemenjaraan dan tertakluk kepada subseksyen 96(2), apa-apa tempoh pemenjaraan yang boleh dijatuhkan oleh mahkamah sesyen. [2] The charge was read and explained to the child in the Malay language. Having understood the charge, the child pleaded guilty. [3] The Court was satisfied that the child understood the nature and consequences of the plea of guilty, including its legal consequences and the range of orders available under the law. [4] The facts of the case were then read to the child. The child admitted the facts and the exhibits tendered by the Prosecution. [5] Being satisfied that the plea was unequivocal and voluntary, the Court accepted the child's plea of guilty to the offence under section 376(1) of the Penal Code. Before determining the appropriate order, the Court considered the Social Report prepared by the Probation Officer, **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 which was read in open court, and also heard the views and recommendations of the two Court Advisers. [6] Learned counsel for the child submitted that the Court should exercise its discretion to impose a community-based order, namely a good behaviour bond or a Community Service Order ("CSO"), instead of placement in a Sekolah Tunas Bakti. Counsel emphasised, among others, that the child was only 14 years old, was a first offender, had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, had cooperated with the authorities throughout the investigation, remained in school, enjoyed strong family support and had shown remorse. Counsel further submitted that the child should be afforded a second chance within the care and supervision of his family. [7] The Prosecution, on the other hand, submitted that an appropriate order should be imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offence, serve as a lesson to the child and deter him from committing similar offences in the future. Decision of the Court [8] The Court has considered the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, the Social Report and all the relevant circumstances. The Court has also considered whether a less restrictive order would adequately meet the child's rehabilitative needs. However, having carefully evaluated the case in its entirety, the Court is satisfied that an order committing the child to a Tunas Bakti School is the most appropriate order to promote the child's rehabilitation, ensure proper supervision and safeguard the best interests of the child. [9] Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 a) Pursuant to section 91(1)(f) of the Child Act 2001, the child shall be sent to Sekolah Tunas Bakti Taiping for a period of three (3) years. b) Upon completion of the said period, the child shall be placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer for a period of one (1) year pursuant to section 70(a) of the Child Act 2001. c) Further, pursuant to section 93(1)(d) of the Child Act 2001, the child's parents or guardian are ordered to visit the child at the institution at least once every three (3) months. Appeal Against the Order [10] Being dissatisfied with the order made by the Court, the child filed an appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal dated 3 July 2026. The Court’s Analysis [11] This Court is satisfied that the charge was read and explained to the child in a language which he understood. The nature of the charge, its essential ingredients and the consequences of a plea of guilty were explained to him. The child admitted the charge without qualification and accepted the prosecution facts. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the plea of guilty was unequivocal and voluntary, and that the requirements of sections 90(3) and 90(4) of the Child Act 2001 were fully complied with. [12] The remaining issue for determination is the appropriate order to be imposed upon the child. In determining that issue, this Court has considered the facts of the case, the Social Report, the submissions of the parties, the recommendations of the Court Advisers and all the relevant circumstances. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [13] The agreed facts disclose that, on 27 January 2026 at about 8.00 p.m., the child invited the child victim to accompany him to a public playground at Jalan Sebong, Bayu Damai, Pengerang, where he committed the offence charged. The offence was subsequently reported to the police after the child victim disclosed the incident to her elder sister. A subsequent medical examination revealed findings consistent with the admitted prosecution facts. [14] In determining the appropriate order, this Court is guided by the legislative purpose of the Child Act 2001, which is reflected in its long title as "An Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the care, protection and rehabilitation of children." The Act therefore places primary emphasis on the care, protection, rehabilitation and welfare of the child. [15] However, those considerations do not operate in isolation. They must be balanced against the nature and seriousness of the offence, the interests of the child victim, the protection of society and the wider public interest. The Court's task is therefore not to identify the least restrictive order available under section 91 of the Child Act 2001, but rather the order that is most appropriate and proportionate, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the statutory objectives of the Act. [16] As the appropriate order under the Child Act 2001 depends substantially upon the child's individual rehabilitative needs, the Social Report assumes particular significance in assisting the Court to determine the appropriate disposition. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [17] The importance of obtaining a Social Report before determining the appropriate order for a young offender has long been recognised by the courts. In Tukiran bin Taib v Public Prosecutor [1955] 1 MLJ 24, Bellamy J observed that: “Secondly, before passing sentence Magistrates should first make careful inquiries regarding the background, antecedents and character– of the convicted person, (See Abu Bakar bin Alif v R (1953) MLJ 19), and this is particularly of importance when the convicted person is a young offender and it is contemplated imposing a sentence of imprisonment. A probation officer's report should always be called for, and a Magistrate should not hesitate to adjourn the case in order to obtain such a report before passing sentence. Inexperienced Magistrates sometimes are in doubt as to the proper manner of bringing in such a report. The probation officer should be called as a witness and give the substance of this report in evidence. (See Ong Ah Thoo v Rex
subsection
(1949) MLJ 36).” [18] Applying the above principle, this Court accepts that, before determining the appropriate order to be imposed upon a child offender, careful inquiries should first be made into the child's background, antecedents and character so that the Court is placed in the best position to determine the order that would most effectively promote the child's rehabilitation and overall welfare. [19] In A Child v Public Prosecutor (and Another Appeal) [2020] 1 LNS 2113, the High Court explained the statutory framework governing a probation report as follows: “The word “probation report” is found in section 2 Child Act 2001 as it is defined as “probation report” means “a report prepared by a probation officer under subsection 90(13);” In section 90(13) of the Act, it mentioned the report in the following terms; **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7
subsection
(13) A probation report referred to in subsection (12) shall be prepared and submitted by the probation officer within thirty days from the date the direction is given by the Court For Children to the probation officer to prepare and submit the probation report and the report–
a
(a) shall contain such information as to the Child's general conduct, home surroundings, school record and medical history as may enable the Court For Children to deal with the case in the best interests of the Child; and may put to him any question arising out of the probation report; and
b
(b) may include any written report of a Social Welfare Officer, a registered medical practitioner or any other person whom the Court For Children thinks fit to provide a report on the Child.” [20] The High Court further emphasised: “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 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.” [21] In light of the foregoing principles, a Social Report is prepared by a Probation Officer following inquiries into the child's personal circumstances, including information obtained from the child, family members, school authorities and other relevant persons, together with **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 an assessment of the child's home and social environment. Such a report provides the Court with valuable information concerning matters that would not ordinarily emerge from the evidence adduced during the trial, thereby enabling the Court to determine the order that would best serve the interests of the child. Whilst the recommendations contained in the Social Report are not binding upon this Court, they nevertheless constitute an important evidential aid in assisting the Court to exercise its sentencing discretion. [22] This Court is also guided by the sentencing principles enunciated in Public Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256, where Hashim Yeop A. Sani J adopted the observations of Hilbery J in R v Kenneth John Ball (1951) 35 Cr App R 164 as follows: "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 try 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 a criminal to an honest life. The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living. Our law does not, therefore, fix the sentence for a particular crime, but fixes a maximum sentence and leaves it to the court to decide what is, within that maximum, the appropriate sentence for each criminal in the particular circumstances of each case. Not only in regard to each crime, but in regard to each criminal, the court has the right and the duty to decide whether to be lenient or severe." **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [23] Although Public Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [supra] concerned the sentencing of an adult offender, the principles articulated therein assume even greater significance where the offender is a child. Rehabilitation remains the paramount objective of the Child Act 2001. Nevertheless, the Court must also have due regard to the seriousness of the offence in determining the appropriate order. The child pleaded guilty to an offence under section 376(1) of the Penal Code, a grave offence which, if committed by an adult, carries a maximum sentence of twenty years' imprisonment together with whipping. The order imposed must therefore effectively address the child's rehabilitative needs whilst reflecting the gravity of the offence and reducing the risk of reoffending. [24] Section 91 of the Child Act 2001 provides the Court with a range of rehabilitative options. However, those alternatives are not interchangeable. The suitability of each order depends upon whether it is capable of addressing the particular rehabilitative needs disclosed by the evidence. The Social Report assesses the child as presenting moderate to high rehabilitative needs. Of particular significance is the assessment that the child's offending behaviour did not arise in isolation, but was associated with longstanding deficiencies in parental supervision, behavioural control and the overall home environment. [25] Having carefully examined the Social Report in the present case, this Court is satisfied that it discloses a number of criminogenic factors which are highly relevant to the determination of the appropriate order. These include the child's significant record of school absenteeism, the absence of a structured daily routine, unrestricted freedom to remain outside the home until late at night without effective supervision, unrestricted access to a smartphone through which he was exposed to **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 pornographic material, and inadequate parental monitoring arising from the mother's inability to exercise effective control and the father's prolonged absence due to work commitments. [26] The Court further notes that, as recorded in the Social Report, the child admitted that the offending behaviour had occurred on more than one occasion before it was eventually reported. Viewed cumulatively, these findings satisfy the Court that the child's offending behaviour was closely associated with multiple criminogenic factors which cannot be adequately addressed without structured rehabilitative intervention. [27] The Court has also considered the representations made personally by the child's guardian. The child's guardian informed the Court that, should the child continue to play football late into the night, she would ensure that he was accompanied by relatives. Whilst the Court accepts that the guardian is genuinely concerned for the child's welfare, the measures proposed do not sufficiently demonstrate that effective parental supervision and appropriate discipline would be consistently maintained. In the judgment of this Court, such measures do not adequately address the concerns identified in the Social Report. Indeed, the measures proposed by the child's mother themselves demonstrate that the present home environment is unable to provide the structure, supervision and behavioural control necessary for the child's rehabilitation. [28] Having considered the Social Report, the guardian's representations and the consistent recommendations of both Court Advisers, this Court is satisfied that a community-based order would not **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 adequately address the child's rehabilitative needs. Placement in a Sekolah Tunas Bakti is therefore warranted. [29] This Court has carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel, including the reliance placed on MNZMN v Public Prosecutor & Other Appeals [2023] 6 CLJ 505 in support of the contention that a community-based order would constitute the appropriate rehabilitative disposition. Whilst the Court of Appeal emphasised the importance of properly evaluating the Social Report and complying with the applicable statutory requirements, it did not lay down any general principle that institutional rehabilitation is inappropriate in every case involving a child offender. Rather, the appropriate order under the Child Act 2001 depends upon the contents of the Social Report, the applicable statutory requirements, and the particular circumstances and rehabilitative needs of the child concerned. [30] Consistently with the approach adopted by the Court of Appeal in MNZMN v Public Prosecutor & Other Appeals [supra], this Court has carefully considered the Social Report, the applicable statutory requirements under the Child Act 2001, and the particular circumstances of the child before determining the appropriate order. Having undertaken that exercise, this Court is satisfied that neither a good behaviour bond nor a Community Service Order would adequately address the child's rehabilitative needs. Instead, the child requires a structured rehabilitative environment capable of providing consistent supervision, discipline and behavioural guidance. [31] In the circumstances, placement in a Sekolah Tunas Bakti is ordered not as an additional punishment. Rather, it represents the **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 rehabilitative order necessary to promote the child's rehabilitation whilst at the same time recognising the seriousness of the offence, protecting the interests of the child victim and serving the wider public interest. [32] Accordingly, having considered the nature and gravity of the offence, the age of both the child and the victim, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, the contents of the Social Report, the submissions of learned counsel and the applicable legal principles, this Court is satisfied that an order under section 91(1)(f) of the Child Act 2001 represents the most appropriate, proportionate and just disposition in the circumstances of this case. Prepared by: ……………………………. Hidayatul Syuhada binti Shamsudin Session Court Judge Pengerang 12 July 2026 For the Prosecution: **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Muhammad Nursyafiq Bin Abd Halim Deputy Public Prosecutor State Legal Adviser's Office of Johor For the Defence: Cik Nurliyana binti Nurkamil Tetuan Naufal Fahmi Syufri Suite 31B, Jalan Flora 1/9, Taman Pulai Flora, 81300 Skudai Johor Darul Ta’zim. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.