PENAMA XXXX

PENAMA XXXX

The court accepted the probation report and considered the child's age (14), first offender status, family support, remorse and the absence of indicators requiring institutional detention; balancing public interest with the child's welfare the court held rehabilitation and supervision via a two‑year good behaviour bond under s.91(1)(b) read with s.93(1)(a)(b) Child Act 2001 (plus reporting to JKM and monthly psychology sessions) was proportionate and appropriate rather than custody.

Citation
AC-84-6-06/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: PENDAKWARAYA; Accused (child): AM BIN MAY
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Case Number
AC-84-6-06/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Juvenile Criminal (child Act) / Sentencing and Judgment by Magistrate Court
Outcome
Child found guilty under Section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017; court imposed non‑custodial rehabilitative orders
Legal Topics
Sexual Touching of a Child, Sentencing, Probation/good Behaviour Bond, Probation Report, Rehabilitation, Public Interest Vs Welfare Balance, Prosecution Appeal
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Child Law Juvenile Justice Sexual Offences Sexual Touching of a Child Sentencing Probation/good Behaviour Bond Probation Report +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWARAYA

Prosecutor

AM BIN MAY

Accused (child)

Procedural Posture

Juvenile Criminal (child Act) / Sentencing and Judgment by Magistrate Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a good behaviour bond is an appropriate and sufficient order for a 14‑year‑old convicted of touching a 5‑year‑old's genitals
  2. 2 How to balance public interest/deterrence with the welfare and rehabilitation of the child offender
  3. 3 Whether institutional detention or Henry Gurney/approved school is warranted given the probation report

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the probation report and considered the child's age (14), first offender status, family support, remorse and the absence of indicators requiring institutional detention; balancing public interest with the child's welfare the court held rehabilitation and supervision via a two‑year good behaviour bond under s.91(1)(b) read with s.93(1)(a)(b) Child Act 2001 (plus reporting to JKM and monthly psychology sessions) was proportionate and appropriate rather than custody.

Court Disposition

Child found guilty under Section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017; court imposed non‑custodial rehabilitative orders

Orders

  • Child ordered to enter into a Good Behaviour Bond for 2 years under s.91(1)(b) read with s.93(1)(a)(b) Child Act 2001
  • Child to report to the nearest Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat (JKM) accompanied by father and participate in JKM‑prescribed activities