SIBU: The High Court here today (June 20) dismissed appeal filed by a 47-year-old man and affirmed the sentences imposed on him by the lower court to serve a total of 36 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of whipping for committing three sexual assault offences against his underage niece.
The appellant, Dunny, on Aug 21 last year pleaded guilty to the three charges and was sentenced to 10 years’ jail and three strokes of whipping by the Sarikei Sessions Court for each charge.
In addition to Section 16 SOACA (Sexual Offences Against Children Act) 2017, Sessions Court judge Stella Augustine Druce also ordered that he serve an additional of two years’ imprisonment with two strokes of whipping for each charge.
She ordered the sentences of Dunny to run consecutively.
In the first charge against him, he was accused of sexually assaulting his teenage niece in a garden hut at Jalan Entabai, in the district of Pakan, on March 10, 2022 at about 4pm.
On the second charge, he committed the same offence on the victim in a room at a longhouse, in the district of Pakan, on March 14, 2022 at about 10am.
The third charge against him that he committed similar offence on the victim in the same room of the longhouse between March 15 and 31, 2022.
The offence was framed under Subsection 14 (A) of the SOACA 2017 and punishable under Section 14 of the same Act and read together with Section 16 (1) of the same Act.
Dissatisfied with the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court judge, Dunny filed the appeal to the High Court.
In his submission, the prosecution/respondent handled by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Mark Kenneth Netto said that before imposing the sentences against the appellant, the Sessions Court judge did consider several sentencing principles.
In doing so, he stressed that paramount consideration was given by the Sessions Court judge to the interest of the public.
He said the Sessions Court judge also considered that the “future of the victim which was ruined by the accused’s act”.
The Sessions Court judge, he stated, also considered the mitigating factor by the appellant that he was first offender, and despite being in the high range, the sentence was still within the trend of sentencing.
“It cannot be denied that the cumulative effect of the imprisonment sentence will have a crushing effect on the appellant bearing in mind that his age. But this effect must be balanced against the seriouness of the offences committed by him against the child victim and to protect other young females from him.
“Hence, the Sessions Court judge was correct in our case when she ordered consecutive sentences for all the three charges against the appellant.
“The sentence imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive in light of the circumstances of the case,” Netto further pointed out.
In dismissing the appeal, High Court judge Wong Siong Tung ruled that after going through the record of appeal and submissions by both the appellant’s counsel and DPP, he found that the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court for each of the three offences committed by the appellant are within the acceptable range of prevailing trends of sentencing for such offences.
He stated that the appellant committed offences upon his own 15-year-old niece whom he was supposed to protect and nurture her whose parents had divorced.
Instead, he said, the appellant committed the acts upon her constituting the offences which are not only heinous and revolting but also deeply nauseating.
Taking into account public interest in deterring the commission of such offences against underage children, the needs for retribution, and the court’s strong condemnation of the appellant’s reprehensible actions, he assered that this court is not persuaded that the sentence as meted out by the Sessions Court for each of the three offences the appellant committed to be manifestly excessive.
The court, he said, also considered the matters pleaded by the appellant in mitigation.
He also pointed out that the court could not conclude that the Sessions Court failed to consider all relevant factors.
The court, he further stated, would not disturb the sentence imposed by a lower court unless it is manifestly inadequate, excessive, illegal, or otherwise improper, given all disclosed facts or if the court erred in applying correct sentencing principles.
“Regarding the crushing effect in the appellant due to the Sessions Court ordering the sentences imposed upon the appellant for each of the three offences, to run consecutively, it is important to note that each offence was distinct and committed on different days.
“The appellant committed the heinous acts constituting the offences upon his underage niece repeatedly. Considering the circumstances and the imperative to deter such grievous offences in the public interest, along with the need for retribution and to strongly condemn such crimes against underage victims, if accumulative sentence imprisonment sentence of 36 years resulting by Sessions Court’s order that the sentence for each of the three offences to run consecutively-crushes the appellant, then so be it.
“For the reasons given, this court is not persuaded that the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court, including the order for consecutive sentences, are erroneous or excessive given the offences committed by the appellant against his underage niece.
“Hence this court dimisses the appeal of the appellant,” Judge Wong concluded.
