The Star online. Metro. North. Thursday September 13, 2007
By K. KASTURI DEWI
PENANG: She used to be a very happy and ac-tive child but these days Loh Irene Khancana, 12, is short-tempered, does not want to leave her house and is even afraid of going to school.
She also complains of giddiness, is hard of hearing and suffers from bouts of pain on the left side of her head.
Last month, Loh received 60 stitches on the left side of her head when an 11-year-old boy whacked her on the head with a stick.
She was playing with two of her friends in a playground at Padang Tembak in Air Itam be-tween 5pm and 7pm on Aug 3 when the incident happened.
“The boy was lighting firecrackers and throwing them at me and my friends.
“We asked him to stop and when he didn’t, both my friends wanted to pick a fight with him but I managed to stop them.
“All of a sudden, I felt something hard on my head and when I turned around, I saw the boy standing behind me holding a very big stick,” she said at the press conference called by state DAP legal bureau chief Jagdeep Singh Deo.
Also present was Loh’s mother M. Jahindi, 42, a hotel employee.
Loh said a neighbour sent her to the Penang Hospital and a CT scan on the brain showed that she suffered from frontal bone fracture haemorrhage.
She was admitted from Aug 3 to Aug 7 and is due to go for an operation on Nov 19 to replace the brain’s frontal bone.
Loh said she only knew the boy from school and did not have any misunderstanding with him.
Jahindi said she lodged a police report at the Kampung Baru police station on the same day.
“My daughter was supposed to return to school on Sept 7 but she is still afraid, in case she sees the boy in school,” she said.
Jahindi also said that her daughter managed to sit her Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) but could not remember anything.
“The boy’s parents and the boy came to visit my daughter. His parents apologised but the boy refused,” she added.
George Town OCPD Asst Comm Azam Abd Hamid said police would wait for the outcome of the investigations before deciding on the next course of action.
Showing posts with label violence in children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violence in children. Show all posts
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
2007 07: Court of Appeal upholds teenager's conviction
The Star Online. News. Nation. Thursday July 12, 2007
KUALA LUMPUR: A teenager, who was found guilty of killing his tuition teacher's daughter by stabbing and slashing her more than 20 times, had his conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal.
However, in its landmark decision, the appellate court set aside the sentence that he be detained in a prison at the pleasure of the King.
Instead, it ruled that the 17-year-old boy be remanded by an order of the Court of Appeal.
Justice Gopal Sri Ram who read out the judgment, said:
"We must say at once that this was a gruesome murder and that there is abundant material on record to support the conviction of the appellant. The victim in this case was found to have had 20 stab wounds.
"This clearly points to an intention to kill. There is absolutely no evidence to bring the case within one of exceptions," he said.
He said the trial judge had "admirably dealt with the evidence and drew the proper inferences from it".
"In our judgment, the conviction is therefore entirely safe," Justice Gopal said when dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Upon hearing the verdict, the boy, who was now being detained at Kajang prison, was expressionless.
Justice Gopal set Thursday (July 19) to hear arguments from both parties on the consequential orders to be made on the appeal for the boy.
The teenager was charged on June 7, 2002 with murdering the 11-year-old girl at her house in Wangsa Maju between 3.30pm and 4.30pm on May 30, 2002.
The boy, who would be 18 in August, was convicted of the crime on July 1.
High Court Justice Ahmad Maarop had on July 24, 2003 ordered for him to be detained in a prison at the pleasure of the King.
........................................................................
Appeals Court: Juveniles cannot be held at King's pleasure
The Star Online. Courts. Friday July 13, 2007
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has ruled as “unconstitutional” the sentencing of a teenager who is being held at the pleasure of the King after he was convicted of murdering his tuition teacher's daughter five years ago.
In a landmark decision yesterday read out by Justice Gopal Sri Ram, the court ruled that Section 97 (2), which allows a juvenile to be held at the pleasure of the King, was unconstitutional.
The two other judges on the Bench, which heard the boy's appeal against conviction and sentence, were Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Justice Raus Sharif.
The Bench was unanimous in ruling that the power to determine the punishment against a child convicted of murder, in lieu of a death punishment, was vested in the hands of the judiciary and not the executive.
Justice Sri Ram, in his 18-page judgment, said Section 97 (2) of the Child Act violated the doctrine of separation of powers, by consigning to the executive the judicial power to determine the measure of the sentence to be served by a juvenile offender.
He said the doctrine of separation of powers was an integral part of the Federal Constitution and since Article 4 (1) of the Federal Constitution declared the Constitution to be the supreme law, any state action violating the doctrine of separation of powers must be struck down as unconstitutional.
Following the court's decision, there is now no provision to punish a juvenile convicted for murder.
Justice Sri Ram said this was an instance where “Parliament has provided for the entry of a conviction and passing of sentence but has made no valid law for the measure of sentence.”
The judge quoted a similar situation in Soon Kim Seng v PP (1978), where the accused was fined RM1,500 on each of the three copyright charges. He then appealed on the ground that the legislation had not provided for any fine or punishment for the possession of a duplicating contrivance.
“(Former Federal Court judge Tan Sri) Chang Min Tat in allowing the appeal held, with regret, that Parliament had failed to provide a punishment for the offence in question. He accordingly upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence.
“We must, with like regret, follow suit. Here, Parliament has said that the appellant shall not, by reason of his age, receive the capital punishment but has made no valid law conferring power upon the courts to impose some other sentence,” said Justice Sri Ram.
He said the court would have been inclined to impose a life imprisonment in this case but unfortunately there was no written law prescribing it.
He added that it was unfortunate that those charged with the drafting of the Child Act did not pay proper attention to decided cases.
“If they had done so, the incongruent and unfortunate circumstances now before this court may well have been avoided. But as judges, we have to apply the law as it exists. We simply have no choice whatever in the matter,” he said.
“We will now hear arguments on the consequential orders that we should make on this appeal,” said Justice Sri Ram, who instructed both parties to make submissions on Thursday. He also ordered the boy, who is now 17, to be remanded under an order of the appellate court pending the submissions.
The Court of Appeal, however, upheld the conviction of the teenager, who was only 12 when he stabbed the 11-year-old girl 20 times with a sharp object.
“We must say at once that this was a gruesome murder and that there is abundant material on record to support the conviction of the appellant.
“In our judgment, the conviction is entirely safe,” Justice Sri Ram said.
The boy is being detained at Kajang Prison.
........................................................................
Power in hands of court, says Karpal
The Star Online. Courts. Friday July 13, 2007Friday July 13, 2007
PUTRAJAYA: The decision was a victory for the judiciary, said the boy’s lawyer Karpal Singh.
“The decision has very far-reaching consequences and implications and it is a victory for the judiciary because judicial power has been emphasised to be in the hands of the court and not that of the executive,” he said.
Following the court’s decision that there was no provision for punishment under law for such offenders, Karpal Singh said the only remedy was for the Parliament to amend the Child Act 2001.
“I call upon the Government to make provisions for the Child Act to be amended in the September sitting of Parliament to include the provision for the judiciary to make the orders with modifications to Section 97(2).
“It is not the King but the judiciary. The court can order a person to be detained at the pleasure of the court with the Board of Justices to be appointed by the court to make recommendations on the detention.”
He said the matter should be decided quickly as “any child could murder anyone without a sentence for the crime”.
“He could be convicted of murder but he cannot be sentenced because the provision for sentences under Sec 97(2) was declared unconstitutional.
“The public interest is very important,” he said.
He said amendments should not be backdated to affect the boy.
He elaborated that this was the first case involving a boy being ordered to be held at the pleasure of the King under the Child Act while the remaining 50 other cases involved detentions under Section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which provides for the detention of persons at the pleasure of the King, or a Ruler or Governor after the person is acquitted by reason of insanity.
Karpal Singh added that even Section 348 of the CPC had to be looked into by the authorities.
Justice Gopal Sri Ram had said in the verdict that the striking down of Section 97(2) would not affect Section 348 of the CPC. The judge said the validity of these other provisions must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Earlier, Karpal Singh argued to the appellate court that the boy should be released after it has ruled that the provisions were unconstitutional.
“The court has no choice but to release him because there is no measure of punishment,” he said.
However, DPP Yaacob Sam indicated to the judges that he wants to take the matter to the Federal Court and asked for an order of remand for the boy. Speaking to reporters later, Karpal said it was a very strange condition for a person not to undergo a sentence but was remanded.
........................................................................
Past cases of those jailed at pleasure of the King
The Star Online. Courts. Friday July 13, 2007
PETALING JAYA: There have been several cases of juveniles or those of unsound mind being sent to jail at the pleasure of the King previously. Among them are:
·IN 2005, Huzairin Azmi, 21, was acquitted on the grounds of insanity for stabbing an office worker twice with a knife in Kuala Lumpur three years earlier. However, the High Court judge ordered him to be held at the pleasure of the King for being insane when he committed the offence;
·IN the Court of Appeal in 2003, five men who had been found guilty of murdering an estate worker in Teluk Intan, Perak, in 1998, were acquitted because there was no prima facie case against them. One of them, identified only as Sivakumar, had been detained at the pleasure of the King because he was 17 when the murder occurred;
·IN 2001, it was stated in Parliament that 21 convicts had been ordered by the High Court to be held at the pleasure of the King for committing capital offences; and
·ON June 11, 2001, Kok Foo Seng, 27, became a free man when he received a royal pardon for good behaviour. He had been convicted of drug trafficking when he was 15 and was ordered by the High Court to be held at the pleasure of the King due to his age and was spared the gallows. He was sent to the Henry Gurney School in Malacca in 1991 and then to Kajang Prison when he turned 21 in 1995.
........................................................................
Sri Ram: We want to keep child away for a long, long time
NST Online. Local News. 20/7/07
PUTRAJAYA: The teenager who killed his tuition teacher’s daughter may spend the rest of his natural life in prison.
"We have no intention of returning this boy back to society. I want to know if we have the power to keep him in prison for a long, long time," said Court of Appeal judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram.
Sri Ram directed the prosecution to look into Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which allows Malaysian courts to apply English criminal procedure law, if no provision is available in the local CPC for a criminal offence.
Section 5 of the CPC reads: "As regards matters of criminal procedure for which no special provision has been made by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, the law relating to criminal procedure for the time being in force in England shall be applied. So far as the same shall not conflict or be inconsistent with this Code and can be made auxiliary thereto.
The teenager brutally stabbed 13-year-old Liew Mei Fong 24 times in 2002 after she had taunted him with chants of "Fatty! Fatty! Fatty"!
The teenager, who was three months short of 13 then, was supposed to attend tuition lessons at the victim’s house in Taman Sri Rampai, Setapak, when the incident occurred.
He went into the kitchen, took a knife and stabbed her repeatedly before dragging her body into a bathroom on the ground floor of the double-storey house.
"It is out of the question to release this boy," Sri Ram said yesterday. "We want to put this child away for as long as possible.
"Yesterday’s proceedings were supposed to be for submissions whether to release the boy, who had been imprisoned for four years after being found guilty of murder.
At that time, he was sentenced by the High Court to be held at the pleasure of the king.
But last week, the same Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s sentence on the grounds that it contravened the doctrine of separation of powers between the executive and judiciary. The court ruled that the sentence was unconstitutional.
Sri Ram, who sat with Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Datuk Md Raus Sharif, said the English legal system’s life sentence equals being locked away for the rest of an individual’s natural life as opposed to the Malaysian version, which is 20 years in jail.
This was objected by defence counsel Karpal Singh (picture), who claimed that the boy should instead be sentenced under Section 125 of the Child Act.The Act states that if no penalty is provided for an offence committed by a minor, the maximum sentence shall be a fine not exceeding RM5,000, or two years’ imprisonment, or both.
The court noted Karpal’s objection but postponed the proceedings for one week to allow the prosecution time to look into the possibility of invoking Section 5 of the CPC.
Speaking to reporters later, Karpal said Malaysian laws are sufficient in this case and there was no need to look to England.While admitting that the sentence under Section 125 of the Child Act was lenient for this case, he said: "This is Malaysian law and it should be followed.
"The teenager, who is now 17 years old, was present in court. His parents, sister, and other relatives were also there.
The teenager was sitting in the public gallery, surrounded by his family. His mother stroked his hand and spoke to him in a hushed voice. The teenager barely spoke; he was simply seen nodding his head.He was handcuffed, wearing a T-shirt, windbreaker, jeans and slippers. He looked much leaner.
After Sri Ram’s comments of "keeping the boy in prison for a long, long time", the family looked visibly upset. They refused to comment when approached later.Submissions will be heard on Wednesday.
........................................................................
Court orders release of 17 yr-old convicted of murder
The Star Online. News. Nation. Wednesday July 25, 2007
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has ordered the release of the 17-year-old boy convicted of murdering his tuition teacher’s 11-year-old daughter five years ago.
When setting aside the sentence that the boy be detained in prison at the pleasure of the King in a landmark judgment earlier this month, Court of Appeal Justice Gopal Sri Ram had ordered DPP Yaacob Sam to look into whether the laws of England were applicable in Malaysia to sentence a teenager to natural life for murder.
The Court met Wednesday to hear submissions from the DPP and defence counsel on whether the appellate court could “import Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and send the 17-year-old boy to prison.”
The boy is currently being remanded at Kajang Prison under a Court of Appeal order. He has already served five years since his date of arrest on May 30, 2002.
The High Court had on July 1, 2003, found the boy guilty of murdering the 11-year-old girl at her house in Sentul, Kuala Lumpur, by stabbing her 20 times with a sharp object on May 30, 2002. He was 12 when he committed the offence.
On July 12, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for murder but set aside the sentence that the boy be held at the pleasure of the King, ruling that the sentence was unconstitutional.
Section 5 of the CPC provides for the laws of England to be applicable in Malaysia when there is no special provision made on matters of criminal procedure under the CPC or any written law.)
........................................................................
Court: No choice but to free teen
The Star Online. News. Nation. Thursday July 26, 2007
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has freed a teenager who was detained in prison at the pleasure of the King for the murder of his tuition teacher’s daughter five years ago.
In a landmark decision yesterday, Justices Gopal Sri Ram, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Raus Sharif held that the boy, who turns 18 next month, had to be set free as there was no law that prescribed a sentence for a child convicted of murder.
The Court of Appeal had on July 12 set aside the sentence that the boy be held at the pleasure of the King, ruling that the sentence was unconstitutional.
In his oral judgment yesterday, Justice Gopal Sri Ram said: “It follows, we have no choice to the matter except to maintain the conviction and order the release of the appellant. The order is as follows: Conviction affirmed and the accused released from custody forthwith.”
At the end of the proceedings, two policemen immediately went to the boy who was in the dock and removed his handcuffs.
His parents, sister, an uncle and an aunt then hugged him tight before leading him out.
Earlier, Justice Sri Ram said this was a “most unfortunate case” and that the boy had committed “a most heinous crime” which, if it had been committed by an adult, would have resulted in the death penalty.
In 2003, the High Court found the boy guilty of murdering the 11-year-old girl at her house in Kuala Lumpur, by stabbing her 20 times and slashing her four times with a sharp object on May 30, 2002, and ordered him to be detained in prison at the pleasure of the King. The boy was 12, when he killed the girl.
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but ruled that the sentencing was “unconstitutional” as Section 97(2) of the Child Act 2001 which provided for this sentence violated the doctrine of separation of powers by consigning to the Executive the judicial power to set the term to be served by a juvenile offender.
Last Thursday, the appellate court explored the possibility of applying the laws of England to sentence the boy to natural life for murder, in the absence of an appropriate sentence under Malaysian law.
The Court of Appeal fixed yesterday to hear submissions from DPP Yaacob Sam and counsel Karpal Singh on the matter.
DPP Yaacob submitted that the laws of England do not apply in Malaysia while Karpal Singh argued that the court had no alternative but to set the boy free.
After delivering his decision, Justice Sri Ram directed DPP Yaacob to take further action on his own pertaining to a warrant for the boy to be remanded pending any appeal to the Federal Court.
The prosecution had filed an appeal on Monday against the court’s ruling on July 12.
When contacted, Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail said the prosecution would file an appeal against the boy’s release.
“I am waiting for the written judgment.”
The boy’s case was the first where a juvenile was ordered to be held at the pleasure of the King under the Child Act 2001.
Fact of the case
On May 30, 2002, an international schoolteacher came home to find her 11-year-old daughter sprawled in a pool of blood on the bathroom floor of their house in Setapak.
She immediately rushed her daughter to a specialist centre, where she was pronounced dead on arrival.
The woman’s 13-year-old tuition student was said to be the last person to have been with the girl. The boy had arrived about an hour early for tuition, before the woman had returned home from a weekly school meeting. The teacher told her daughter to let the boy into the house first.
While waiting in the house, the boy was taunted by the victim, who repeatedly called him “fatty.” A spat soon ensued between the two children. Continuing their quarrel in the kitchen, the boy suddenly snapped and attacked her with a sharp weapon.
Post-mortem reports revealed that she had died due to massive blood loss from four slash wounds and 20 stab wounds.
After committing the murder, the boy had left the scene with his uncle, whom he had asked to pick him up on the excuse that his tuition class had been cancelled.
On finding her daughter’s body, the woman had called up the boy who repeatedly said: “Teacher, sorry, sorry. Teacher, sorry ... I don’t know why I did it.’’
The boy was picked up by the police from his father’s shop about an hour later.
........................................................................
Murdered girl’s mother stunned
The Star Online. News. Nation. Thursday July 26, 2007
KUALA LUMPUR: “I am stunned.”
This was the reaction from the tuition teacher, whose daughter was murdered five years ago, upon learning that the boy who had been convicted of the crime had been freed.
The 48-year-old teacher described the decision as “unfair” to her daughter and family members.
“It is a fact that the boy has been convicted of murdering my daughter. But it is unacceptable to free him with no sentence being passed on him for the crime.
“I am not saying that the boy should not be given a second chance but clearly something more than this (being freed) could be done,” she said in a telephone interview.
Following the murder which took place at her house in Taman Seri Rampai, Setapak, on May 30, 2002, the family moved to Taman Ukay Perdana in Ulu Klang four years ago.
The victim’s uncle said the family had just begun to “heal” after their grief. He said the boy’s release came as a major blow to them.
“This is unfair. We are disappointed and shocked over the ruling,” said the 40-year-old contractor.
“This court has set a precedent that a juvenile would not be held accountable for a murder.
“I don’t know what else we can do. We will still pursue all means to ensure the murderer is handed the sentence he deserves,” he said.
........................................................................
Child killer freed: Karpal suggests way to keep young killers in jail
NST Online. Frontpage. 26/7/07
KUALA LUMPUR: Current laws allow for minors to commit murder and walk scot-free.
"This case has set a precedent," said lawyer Karpal Singh who appeared for the teenager.
While he sympathised with the victim’s family, he said the current laws allow for minors to walk free after committing murder.
"I urge the government to do something about it by moving a bill in Parliament to amend Section 97 of the Child Act."
Karpal said the decision by the Court of Appeal in this case showed that judicial power is still in the hands of the judiciary and that has far reaching implications.
He said minors should be placed at the pleasure of the court with the board of justices making recommendations every year.
"Only then the whole process of the trial, meaning conviction and punishment remain in the hands of the court," Karpal said.
He said since the boy had undergone a trial and was detained for more than four years, any amendment now should not affect him.
"Any law should be prospective in application and not retrospective," said Karpal.
The teenager whom Karpal had defended, had brutally killed the victim, Liew Mei Fong, after she had allegedly taunted him with chants of "Fatty! Fatty! Fatty!"
The murderer who was then 13 years old, was at Liew’s house in Taman Seri Rampai, Setapak, for tuition lessons.
The boy’s tuition teacher was Liew’s mother, Chin Yoke Chan, a teacher at an international school.
On May 31, 2002, the boy went for his tuition lesson early. Only Liew was there and she started taunting him in Cantonese. It was reported that he told her to stop but Liew went on. She then went outside to buy an ice-cream from a vendor, taunting him even as she did so.
It was then that something in the boy snapped.
Police investigations revealed that the suspect followed Mei Fong to the kitchen, grabbed a knife and repeatedly stabbed her. She was then left bleeding in the bathroom on the ground floor of the house.
Testimony in court later revealed that Liew was stabbed and slashed 24 times.
The suspect then locked the house and left the scene with his uncle, whom he had contacted. He told his uncle that there was no tuition that day and asked him to take him home.
Police picked up the boy from his father’s shop an hour later and seized the clothes he was wearing during the incident. The murder weapon, a kitchen knife, was found later in the course of investigations.
........................................................................
Former child prisoner empathises with boy
The Star Online. News. Nation. Friday July 27, 2007
KUALA LUMPUR: Having entered prison at the age of 14, Kok Foo Seng knows exactly what it is like to be lost behind bars as a child.
He spent 13 years in prison after being ordered to be held at the pleasure of the Pahang Sultan for a drug trafficking charge in 1989.
Now aged 33, he can speak with conviction about the case involving the release of a teenager who had been detained in prison for the murder of his tuition teacher's daughter in 2002.
“I am happy for the boy although I have served more than twice longer than him in prison. I wish him all the best,” added Kok, now a vegetable supplier.
Kok was arrested in 1989. Being a juvenile, he escaped the death sentence after being convicted.
He was ordered by the High Court to be held at the pleasure of the sultan in 1991.
He was released from Kajang Prison in 2001 at the age of 27 after being pardoned by the sultan.
With all that trauma behind him now, Kok advised the boy to treasure his freedom, saying that there “will never be a second chance” for him.
Kok, a Form One dropout, “salvaged” himself by brushing up on his Chinese language to write a book he titled Return of the Lost Lamb. The book was published in 2000, and his former prison mates also helped him market it upon their release.
Kok has tried various jobs – pasar malam trader, odd-job worker and property agent, before finally being a vegetable supplier.
He considers himself blessed – six months after he quit as a property agent, he closed a deal to sell a piece of land worth more than RM10mil.
With his commission, Kok could pay the deposit on a flat and has also signed up for a housing loan.
“I will be moving into my new house, hopefully in September. I am doing all right, but it could be better,” added the bachelor.
........................................................................
Appeal filed against boy’s release
The Star Online. News. Nation. Saturday July 28, 2007
PUTRAJAYA: The prosecution filed an appeal in the Federal Court yesterday against the release of the boy convicted for the murder of his tuition teacher’s daughter.
The boy, who turns 18 next month, was sentenced by the High Court four years ago to be detained in prison at the pleasure of the King.
On July 12, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence, ruling that it was “unconstitutional”. The prosecution had already filed an appeal on Monday against the ruling.
On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal released the boy, which prompted the prosecution to file another appeal yesterday.
In 2003, the High Court found the boy guilty of murdering the 11-year-old girl at her house in Kuala Lumpur by stabbing her 20 times and slashing her four times with a sharp object on May 30, 2002. The boy was 12 when he killed the girl.
.............................................................
30 others are being held at the pleasure of the king - will they be freed, too?
The Star Online. News. Nation. Sunday July 29, 2007
KUALA LUMPUR: The Court of Appeal decision that saw a 17-year-old boy convicted of murder going free has raised hopes that 30 others also detained at the pleasure of the King may be released too. But for now, they will just have to wait and hope.
Their fate will depend on the outcome of the Attorney-General’s appeal in the Federal Court against the ruling.
Even then, freedom is not a certainty as there are different schools of thought, even in legal circles. Some say the decision is binding on all those detained at the pleasure of the King but others disagree.
Bar Council’s Criminal Law Committee chairman Datuk V. Sithambaram is of the opinion that the decision applies to that particular teenager and not to all.
“Even if the families of those detained at the pleasure of the King applied for a revision of their sentences immediately, the courts will stay the application until the Federal Court has disposed of the AG’s appeal,” he said yesterday. “This would be the same for those who have not exhausted all their avenues of appeal.”
According to Deputy Internal Security Minister Datuk Fu Ah Kiow, there are currently 30 boys and men convicted of murder or drug trafficking, being detained at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in various prisons nationwide.
Of these, he said 11 were still under 18, while 14 had been convicted when they were below 18 but are now over 18. The remaining five were adults who were escaped the gallows on the grounds of insanity.
Fu said that 10 of the 11 were detained for murder under Section 97 (2) of the Child Act 2001, which was declared unconstitutional by the court on July 12, and one came under the same provision of the Juvenile Courts Act 1947 (repealed by the Child Act in 2001).
In the case of the freed boy, since he was 12 when he murdered his tuition teacher’s daughter in 2002, and the law prohibits children from being sentenced to death, the High Court had applied Section 97 (2) of the Child Act 2001 to ordered his detention at the pleasure of the King, after convicting him in July 2003.
Section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code, provides for the detention of persons at the pleasure of the King after the person is acquitted by reason of insanity and Section 97(1) of the Child Act states that a minor found guilty of murder cannot be sentenced to death.
On July 12, the Court of Appeal declared Section 97 (2) unconstitutional saying it gave to the Executive the Judiciary’s power to determine the measure of the sentence, for example the length of detention, to be served by a juvenile offender.
The boy was subsequently freed although the conviction remains.
Following the landmark decision, the boy’s counsel Karpal Singh said that the 11 juveniles now being held in prison should be released forthwith without having to go to court.
All 11 have already served between two and six years in the prisons in Kajang, Sungai Petani and Marang.
KUALA LUMPUR: A teenager, who was found guilty of killing his tuition teacher's daughter by stabbing and slashing her more than 20 times, had his conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal.
However, in its landmark decision, the appellate court set aside the sentence that he be detained in a prison at the pleasure of the King.
Instead, it ruled that the 17-year-old boy be remanded by an order of the Court of Appeal.
Justice Gopal Sri Ram who read out the judgment, said:
"We must say at once that this was a gruesome murder and that there is abundant material on record to support the conviction of the appellant. The victim in this case was found to have had 20 stab wounds.
"This clearly points to an intention to kill. There is absolutely no evidence to bring the case within one of exceptions," he said.
He said the trial judge had "admirably dealt with the evidence and drew the proper inferences from it".
"In our judgment, the conviction is therefore entirely safe," Justice Gopal said when dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Upon hearing the verdict, the boy, who was now being detained at Kajang prison, was expressionless.
Justice Gopal set Thursday (July 19) to hear arguments from both parties on the consequential orders to be made on the appeal for the boy.
The teenager was charged on June 7, 2002 with murdering the 11-year-old girl at her house in Wangsa Maju between 3.30pm and 4.30pm on May 30, 2002.
The boy, who would be 18 in August, was convicted of the crime on July 1.
High Court Justice Ahmad Maarop had on July 24, 2003 ordered for him to be detained in a prison at the pleasure of the King.
........................................................................
Appeals Court: Juveniles cannot be held at King's pleasure
The Star Online. Courts. Friday July 13, 2007
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has ruled as “unconstitutional” the sentencing of a teenager who is being held at the pleasure of the King after he was convicted of murdering his tuition teacher's daughter five years ago.
In a landmark decision yesterday read out by Justice Gopal Sri Ram, the court ruled that Section 97 (2), which allows a juvenile to be held at the pleasure of the King, was unconstitutional.
The two other judges on the Bench, which heard the boy's appeal against conviction and sentence, were Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Justice Raus Sharif.
The Bench was unanimous in ruling that the power to determine the punishment against a child convicted of murder, in lieu of a death punishment, was vested in the hands of the judiciary and not the executive.
Justice Sri Ram, in his 18-page judgment, said Section 97 (2) of the Child Act violated the doctrine of separation of powers, by consigning to the executive the judicial power to determine the measure of the sentence to be served by a juvenile offender.
He said the doctrine of separation of powers was an integral part of the Federal Constitution and since Article 4 (1) of the Federal Constitution declared the Constitution to be the supreme law, any state action violating the doctrine of separation of powers must be struck down as unconstitutional.
Following the court's decision, there is now no provision to punish a juvenile convicted for murder.
Justice Sri Ram said this was an instance where “Parliament has provided for the entry of a conviction and passing of sentence but has made no valid law for the measure of sentence.”
The judge quoted a similar situation in Soon Kim Seng v PP (1978), where the accused was fined RM1,500 on each of the three copyright charges. He then appealed on the ground that the legislation had not provided for any fine or punishment for the possession of a duplicating contrivance.
“(Former Federal Court judge Tan Sri) Chang Min Tat in allowing the appeal held, with regret, that Parliament had failed to provide a punishment for the offence in question. He accordingly upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence.
“We must, with like regret, follow suit. Here, Parliament has said that the appellant shall not, by reason of his age, receive the capital punishment but has made no valid law conferring power upon the courts to impose some other sentence,” said Justice Sri Ram.
He said the court would have been inclined to impose a life imprisonment in this case but unfortunately there was no written law prescribing it.
He added that it was unfortunate that those charged with the drafting of the Child Act did not pay proper attention to decided cases.
“If they had done so, the incongruent and unfortunate circumstances now before this court may well have been avoided. But as judges, we have to apply the law as it exists. We simply have no choice whatever in the matter,” he said.
“We will now hear arguments on the consequential orders that we should make on this appeal,” said Justice Sri Ram, who instructed both parties to make submissions on Thursday. He also ordered the boy, who is now 17, to be remanded under an order of the appellate court pending the submissions.
The Court of Appeal, however, upheld the conviction of the teenager, who was only 12 when he stabbed the 11-year-old girl 20 times with a sharp object.
“We must say at once that this was a gruesome murder and that there is abundant material on record to support the conviction of the appellant.
“In our judgment, the conviction is entirely safe,” Justice Sri Ram said.
The boy is being detained at Kajang Prison.
........................................................................
Power in hands of court, says Karpal
The Star Online. Courts. Friday July 13, 2007Friday July 13, 2007
PUTRAJAYA: The decision was a victory for the judiciary, said the boy’s lawyer Karpal Singh.
“The decision has very far-reaching consequences and implications and it is a victory for the judiciary because judicial power has been emphasised to be in the hands of the court and not that of the executive,” he said.
Following the court’s decision that there was no provision for punishment under law for such offenders, Karpal Singh said the only remedy was for the Parliament to amend the Child Act 2001.
“I call upon the Government to make provisions for the Child Act to be amended in the September sitting of Parliament to include the provision for the judiciary to make the orders with modifications to Section 97(2).
“It is not the King but the judiciary. The court can order a person to be detained at the pleasure of the court with the Board of Justices to be appointed by the court to make recommendations on the detention.”
He said the matter should be decided quickly as “any child could murder anyone without a sentence for the crime”.
“He could be convicted of murder but he cannot be sentenced because the provision for sentences under Sec 97(2) was declared unconstitutional.
“The public interest is very important,” he said.
He said amendments should not be backdated to affect the boy.
He elaborated that this was the first case involving a boy being ordered to be held at the pleasure of the King under the Child Act while the remaining 50 other cases involved detentions under Section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which provides for the detention of persons at the pleasure of the King, or a Ruler or Governor after the person is acquitted by reason of insanity.
Karpal Singh added that even Section 348 of the CPC had to be looked into by the authorities.
Justice Gopal Sri Ram had said in the verdict that the striking down of Section 97(2) would not affect Section 348 of the CPC. The judge said the validity of these other provisions must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Earlier, Karpal Singh argued to the appellate court that the boy should be released after it has ruled that the provisions were unconstitutional.
“The court has no choice but to release him because there is no measure of punishment,” he said.
However, DPP Yaacob Sam indicated to the judges that he wants to take the matter to the Federal Court and asked for an order of remand for the boy. Speaking to reporters later, Karpal said it was a very strange condition for a person not to undergo a sentence but was remanded.
........................................................................
Past cases of those jailed at pleasure of the King
The Star Online. Courts. Friday July 13, 2007
PETALING JAYA: There have been several cases of juveniles or those of unsound mind being sent to jail at the pleasure of the King previously. Among them are:
·IN 2005, Huzairin Azmi, 21, was acquitted on the grounds of insanity for stabbing an office worker twice with a knife in Kuala Lumpur three years earlier. However, the High Court judge ordered him to be held at the pleasure of the King for being insane when he committed the offence;
·IN the Court of Appeal in 2003, five men who had been found guilty of murdering an estate worker in Teluk Intan, Perak, in 1998, were acquitted because there was no prima facie case against them. One of them, identified only as Sivakumar, had been detained at the pleasure of the King because he was 17 when the murder occurred;
·IN 2001, it was stated in Parliament that 21 convicts had been ordered by the High Court to be held at the pleasure of the King for committing capital offences; and
·ON June 11, 2001, Kok Foo Seng, 27, became a free man when he received a royal pardon for good behaviour. He had been convicted of drug trafficking when he was 15 and was ordered by the High Court to be held at the pleasure of the King due to his age and was spared the gallows. He was sent to the Henry Gurney School in Malacca in 1991 and then to Kajang Prison when he turned 21 in 1995.
........................................................................
Sri Ram: We want to keep child away for a long, long time
NST Online. Local News. 20/7/07
PUTRAJAYA: The teenager who killed his tuition teacher’s daughter may spend the rest of his natural life in prison.
"We have no intention of returning this boy back to society. I want to know if we have the power to keep him in prison for a long, long time," said Court of Appeal judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram.
Sri Ram directed the prosecution to look into Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which allows Malaysian courts to apply English criminal procedure law, if no provision is available in the local CPC for a criminal offence.
Section 5 of the CPC reads: "As regards matters of criminal procedure for which no special provision has been made by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, the law relating to criminal procedure for the time being in force in England shall be applied. So far as the same shall not conflict or be inconsistent with this Code and can be made auxiliary thereto.
The teenager brutally stabbed 13-year-old Liew Mei Fong 24 times in 2002 after she had taunted him with chants of "Fatty! Fatty! Fatty"!
The teenager, who was three months short of 13 then, was supposed to attend tuition lessons at the victim’s house in Taman Sri Rampai, Setapak, when the incident occurred.
He went into the kitchen, took a knife and stabbed her repeatedly before dragging her body into a bathroom on the ground floor of the double-storey house.
"It is out of the question to release this boy," Sri Ram said yesterday. "We want to put this child away for as long as possible.
"Yesterday’s proceedings were supposed to be for submissions whether to release the boy, who had been imprisoned for four years after being found guilty of murder.
At that time, he was sentenced by the High Court to be held at the pleasure of the king.
But last week, the same Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s sentence on the grounds that it contravened the doctrine of separation of powers between the executive and judiciary. The court ruled that the sentence was unconstitutional.
Sri Ram, who sat with Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Datuk Md Raus Sharif, said the English legal system’s life sentence equals being locked away for the rest of an individual’s natural life as opposed to the Malaysian version, which is 20 years in jail.
This was objected by defence counsel Karpal Singh (picture), who claimed that the boy should instead be sentenced under Section 125 of the Child Act.The Act states that if no penalty is provided for an offence committed by a minor, the maximum sentence shall be a fine not exceeding RM5,000, or two years’ imprisonment, or both.
The court noted Karpal’s objection but postponed the proceedings for one week to allow the prosecution time to look into the possibility of invoking Section 5 of the CPC.
Speaking to reporters later, Karpal said Malaysian laws are sufficient in this case and there was no need to look to England.While admitting that the sentence under Section 125 of the Child Act was lenient for this case, he said: "This is Malaysian law and it should be followed.
"The teenager, who is now 17 years old, was present in court. His parents, sister, and other relatives were also there.
The teenager was sitting in the public gallery, surrounded by his family. His mother stroked his hand and spoke to him in a hushed voice. The teenager barely spoke; he was simply seen nodding his head.He was handcuffed, wearing a T-shirt, windbreaker, jeans and slippers. He looked much leaner.
After Sri Ram’s comments of "keeping the boy in prison for a long, long time", the family looked visibly upset. They refused to comment when approached later.Submissions will be heard on Wednesday.
........................................................................
Court orders release of 17 yr-old convicted of murder
The Star Online. News. Nation. Wednesday July 25, 2007
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has ordered the release of the 17-year-old boy convicted of murdering his tuition teacher’s 11-year-old daughter five years ago.
When setting aside the sentence that the boy be detained in prison at the pleasure of the King in a landmark judgment earlier this month, Court of Appeal Justice Gopal Sri Ram had ordered DPP Yaacob Sam to look into whether the laws of England were applicable in Malaysia to sentence a teenager to natural life for murder.
The Court met Wednesday to hear submissions from the DPP and defence counsel on whether the appellate court could “import Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and send the 17-year-old boy to prison.”
The boy is currently being remanded at Kajang Prison under a Court of Appeal order. He has already served five years since his date of arrest on May 30, 2002.
The High Court had on July 1, 2003, found the boy guilty of murdering the 11-year-old girl at her house in Sentul, Kuala Lumpur, by stabbing her 20 times with a sharp object on May 30, 2002. He was 12 when he committed the offence.
On July 12, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for murder but set aside the sentence that the boy be held at the pleasure of the King, ruling that the sentence was unconstitutional.
Section 5 of the CPC provides for the laws of England to be applicable in Malaysia when there is no special provision made on matters of criminal procedure under the CPC or any written law.)
........................................................................
Court: No choice but to free teen
The Star Online. News. Nation. Thursday July 26, 2007
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has freed a teenager who was detained in prison at the pleasure of the King for the murder of his tuition teacher’s daughter five years ago.
In a landmark decision yesterday, Justices Gopal Sri Ram, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Raus Sharif held that the boy, who turns 18 next month, had to be set free as there was no law that prescribed a sentence for a child convicted of murder.
The Court of Appeal had on July 12 set aside the sentence that the boy be held at the pleasure of the King, ruling that the sentence was unconstitutional.
In his oral judgment yesterday, Justice Gopal Sri Ram said: “It follows, we have no choice to the matter except to maintain the conviction and order the release of the appellant. The order is as follows: Conviction affirmed and the accused released from custody forthwith.”
At the end of the proceedings, two policemen immediately went to the boy who was in the dock and removed his handcuffs.
His parents, sister, an uncle and an aunt then hugged him tight before leading him out.
Earlier, Justice Sri Ram said this was a “most unfortunate case” and that the boy had committed “a most heinous crime” which, if it had been committed by an adult, would have resulted in the death penalty.
In 2003, the High Court found the boy guilty of murdering the 11-year-old girl at her house in Kuala Lumpur, by stabbing her 20 times and slashing her four times with a sharp object on May 30, 2002, and ordered him to be detained in prison at the pleasure of the King. The boy was 12, when he killed the girl.
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but ruled that the sentencing was “unconstitutional” as Section 97(2) of the Child Act 2001 which provided for this sentence violated the doctrine of separation of powers by consigning to the Executive the judicial power to set the term to be served by a juvenile offender.
Last Thursday, the appellate court explored the possibility of applying the laws of England to sentence the boy to natural life for murder, in the absence of an appropriate sentence under Malaysian law.
The Court of Appeal fixed yesterday to hear submissions from DPP Yaacob Sam and counsel Karpal Singh on the matter.
DPP Yaacob submitted that the laws of England do not apply in Malaysia while Karpal Singh argued that the court had no alternative but to set the boy free.
After delivering his decision, Justice Sri Ram directed DPP Yaacob to take further action on his own pertaining to a warrant for the boy to be remanded pending any appeal to the Federal Court.
The prosecution had filed an appeal on Monday against the court’s ruling on July 12.
When contacted, Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail said the prosecution would file an appeal against the boy’s release.
“I am waiting for the written judgment.”
The boy’s case was the first where a juvenile was ordered to be held at the pleasure of the King under the Child Act 2001.
Fact of the case
On May 30, 2002, an international schoolteacher came home to find her 11-year-old daughter sprawled in a pool of blood on the bathroom floor of their house in Setapak.
She immediately rushed her daughter to a specialist centre, where she was pronounced dead on arrival.
The woman’s 13-year-old tuition student was said to be the last person to have been with the girl. The boy had arrived about an hour early for tuition, before the woman had returned home from a weekly school meeting. The teacher told her daughter to let the boy into the house first.
While waiting in the house, the boy was taunted by the victim, who repeatedly called him “fatty.” A spat soon ensued between the two children. Continuing their quarrel in the kitchen, the boy suddenly snapped and attacked her with a sharp weapon.
Post-mortem reports revealed that she had died due to massive blood loss from four slash wounds and 20 stab wounds.
After committing the murder, the boy had left the scene with his uncle, whom he had asked to pick him up on the excuse that his tuition class had been cancelled.
On finding her daughter’s body, the woman had called up the boy who repeatedly said: “Teacher, sorry, sorry. Teacher, sorry ... I don’t know why I did it.’’
The boy was picked up by the police from his father’s shop about an hour later.
........................................................................
Murdered girl’s mother stunned
The Star Online. News. Nation. Thursday July 26, 2007
KUALA LUMPUR: “I am stunned.”
This was the reaction from the tuition teacher, whose daughter was murdered five years ago, upon learning that the boy who had been convicted of the crime had been freed.
The 48-year-old teacher described the decision as “unfair” to her daughter and family members.
“It is a fact that the boy has been convicted of murdering my daughter. But it is unacceptable to free him with no sentence being passed on him for the crime.
“I am not saying that the boy should not be given a second chance but clearly something more than this (being freed) could be done,” she said in a telephone interview.
Following the murder which took place at her house in Taman Seri Rampai, Setapak, on May 30, 2002, the family moved to Taman Ukay Perdana in Ulu Klang four years ago.
The victim’s uncle said the family had just begun to “heal” after their grief. He said the boy’s release came as a major blow to them.
“This is unfair. We are disappointed and shocked over the ruling,” said the 40-year-old contractor.
“This court has set a precedent that a juvenile would not be held accountable for a murder.
“I don’t know what else we can do. We will still pursue all means to ensure the murderer is handed the sentence he deserves,” he said.
........................................................................
Child killer freed: Karpal suggests way to keep young killers in jail
NST Online. Frontpage. 26/7/07
KUALA LUMPUR: Current laws allow for minors to commit murder and walk scot-free.
"This case has set a precedent," said lawyer Karpal Singh who appeared for the teenager.
While he sympathised with the victim’s family, he said the current laws allow for minors to walk free after committing murder.
"I urge the government to do something about it by moving a bill in Parliament to amend Section 97 of the Child Act."
Karpal said the decision by the Court of Appeal in this case showed that judicial power is still in the hands of the judiciary and that has far reaching implications.
He said minors should be placed at the pleasure of the court with the board of justices making recommendations every year.
"Only then the whole process of the trial, meaning conviction and punishment remain in the hands of the court," Karpal said.
He said since the boy had undergone a trial and was detained for more than four years, any amendment now should not affect him.
"Any law should be prospective in application and not retrospective," said Karpal.
The teenager whom Karpal had defended, had brutally killed the victim, Liew Mei Fong, after she had allegedly taunted him with chants of "Fatty! Fatty! Fatty!"
The murderer who was then 13 years old, was at Liew’s house in Taman Seri Rampai, Setapak, for tuition lessons.
The boy’s tuition teacher was Liew’s mother, Chin Yoke Chan, a teacher at an international school.
On May 31, 2002, the boy went for his tuition lesson early. Only Liew was there and she started taunting him in Cantonese. It was reported that he told her to stop but Liew went on. She then went outside to buy an ice-cream from a vendor, taunting him even as she did so.
It was then that something in the boy snapped.
Police investigations revealed that the suspect followed Mei Fong to the kitchen, grabbed a knife and repeatedly stabbed her. She was then left bleeding in the bathroom on the ground floor of the house.
Testimony in court later revealed that Liew was stabbed and slashed 24 times.
The suspect then locked the house and left the scene with his uncle, whom he had contacted. He told his uncle that there was no tuition that day and asked him to take him home.
Police picked up the boy from his father’s shop an hour later and seized the clothes he was wearing during the incident. The murder weapon, a kitchen knife, was found later in the course of investigations.
........................................................................
Former child prisoner empathises with boy
The Star Online. News. Nation. Friday July 27, 2007
KUALA LUMPUR: Having entered prison at the age of 14, Kok Foo Seng knows exactly what it is like to be lost behind bars as a child.
He spent 13 years in prison after being ordered to be held at the pleasure of the Pahang Sultan for a drug trafficking charge in 1989.
Now aged 33, he can speak with conviction about the case involving the release of a teenager who had been detained in prison for the murder of his tuition teacher's daughter in 2002.
“I am happy for the boy although I have served more than twice longer than him in prison. I wish him all the best,” added Kok, now a vegetable supplier.
Kok was arrested in 1989. Being a juvenile, he escaped the death sentence after being convicted.
He was ordered by the High Court to be held at the pleasure of the sultan in 1991.
He was released from Kajang Prison in 2001 at the age of 27 after being pardoned by the sultan.
With all that trauma behind him now, Kok advised the boy to treasure his freedom, saying that there “will never be a second chance” for him.
Kok, a Form One dropout, “salvaged” himself by brushing up on his Chinese language to write a book he titled Return of the Lost Lamb. The book was published in 2000, and his former prison mates also helped him market it upon their release.
Kok has tried various jobs – pasar malam trader, odd-job worker and property agent, before finally being a vegetable supplier.
He considers himself blessed – six months after he quit as a property agent, he closed a deal to sell a piece of land worth more than RM10mil.
With his commission, Kok could pay the deposit on a flat and has also signed up for a housing loan.
“I will be moving into my new house, hopefully in September. I am doing all right, but it could be better,” added the bachelor.
........................................................................
Appeal filed against boy’s release
The Star Online. News. Nation. Saturday July 28, 2007
PUTRAJAYA: The prosecution filed an appeal in the Federal Court yesterday against the release of the boy convicted for the murder of his tuition teacher’s daughter.
The boy, who turns 18 next month, was sentenced by the High Court four years ago to be detained in prison at the pleasure of the King.
On July 12, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence, ruling that it was “unconstitutional”. The prosecution had already filed an appeal on Monday against the ruling.
On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal released the boy, which prompted the prosecution to file another appeal yesterday.
In 2003, the High Court found the boy guilty of murdering the 11-year-old girl at her house in Kuala Lumpur by stabbing her 20 times and slashing her four times with a sharp object on May 30, 2002. The boy was 12 when he killed the girl.
.............................................................
30 others are being held at the pleasure of the king - will they be freed, too?
The Star Online. News. Nation. Sunday July 29, 2007
KUALA LUMPUR: The Court of Appeal decision that saw a 17-year-old boy convicted of murder going free has raised hopes that 30 others also detained at the pleasure of the King may be released too. But for now, they will just have to wait and hope.
Their fate will depend on the outcome of the Attorney-General’s appeal in the Federal Court against the ruling.
Even then, freedom is not a certainty as there are different schools of thought, even in legal circles. Some say the decision is binding on all those detained at the pleasure of the King but others disagree.
Bar Council’s Criminal Law Committee chairman Datuk V. Sithambaram is of the opinion that the decision applies to that particular teenager and not to all.
“Even if the families of those detained at the pleasure of the King applied for a revision of their sentences immediately, the courts will stay the application until the Federal Court has disposed of the AG’s appeal,” he said yesterday. “This would be the same for those who have not exhausted all their avenues of appeal.”
According to Deputy Internal Security Minister Datuk Fu Ah Kiow, there are currently 30 boys and men convicted of murder or drug trafficking, being detained at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in various prisons nationwide.
Of these, he said 11 were still under 18, while 14 had been convicted when they were below 18 but are now over 18. The remaining five were adults who were escaped the gallows on the grounds of insanity.
Fu said that 10 of the 11 were detained for murder under Section 97 (2) of the Child Act 2001, which was declared unconstitutional by the court on July 12, and one came under the same provision of the Juvenile Courts Act 1947 (repealed by the Child Act in 2001).
In the case of the freed boy, since he was 12 when he murdered his tuition teacher’s daughter in 2002, and the law prohibits children from being sentenced to death, the High Court had applied Section 97 (2) of the Child Act 2001 to ordered his detention at the pleasure of the King, after convicting him in July 2003.
Section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code, provides for the detention of persons at the pleasure of the King after the person is acquitted by reason of insanity and Section 97(1) of the Child Act states that a minor found guilty of murder cannot be sentenced to death.
On July 12, the Court of Appeal declared Section 97 (2) unconstitutional saying it gave to the Executive the Judiciary’s power to determine the measure of the sentence, for example the length of detention, to be served by a juvenile offender.
The boy was subsequently freed although the conviction remains.
Following the landmark decision, the boy’s counsel Karpal Singh said that the 11 juveniles now being held in prison should be released forthwith without having to go to court.
All 11 have already served between two and six years in the prisons in Kajang, Sungai Petani and Marang.
Wednesday, 4 July 2007
2007 06: Man guilty of raping teacher
NST online. Local News. 30/6/07
By : Jaspal Singh
POH: A 21-year-old man was found guilty by a Sessions Court here yesterday of raping a 27-year-old religious teacher four years ago.
Judge Ahmad Nasfy Yasin ruled that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt while the accused had failed to raise a reasonable defence. The accused had entered the dormitory at Sekolah Agama Ma’ahad Al Aziz in Parit, Perak Tengah, on March 24, 2003, between 3.30am and 4.30am, and assaulted the victim until she became unconscious before raping her.
The accused was a juvenile at the time of the offence, four months short of turning 18.
The court was told that when the victim regained consciousness, she saw blood and her undergarments all over the bed.
The prosecution had also proven through a medical expert that the hymen tear was new and was consistent with the act of rape, the judge said.
In his defence, the man, who was neither related to his victim nor a student at the religious school, denied raping the woman.
The court postponed sentencing to July 13 pending a probation report.
The man was represented by counsel Mahinderjeet Singh while prosecution was headed by DPP Ahmad Shazilee.
By : Jaspal Singh
POH: A 21-year-old man was found guilty by a Sessions Court here yesterday of raping a 27-year-old religious teacher four years ago.
Judge Ahmad Nasfy Yasin ruled that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt while the accused had failed to raise a reasonable defence. The accused had entered the dormitory at Sekolah Agama Ma’ahad Al Aziz in Parit, Perak Tengah, on March 24, 2003, between 3.30am and 4.30am, and assaulted the victim until she became unconscious before raping her.
The accused was a juvenile at the time of the offence, four months short of turning 18.
The court was told that when the victim regained consciousness, she saw blood and her undergarments all over the bed.
The prosecution had also proven through a medical expert that the hymen tear was new and was consistent with the act of rape, the judge said.
In his defence, the man, who was neither related to his victim nor a student at the religious school, denied raping the woman.
The court postponed sentencing to July 13 pending a probation report.
The man was represented by counsel Mahinderjeet Singh while prosecution was headed by DPP Ahmad Shazilee.
Monday, 2 July 2007
2007 06: Maid says teen robber raped her
The Star online. News. Nation. Wednesday June 27, 2007
KUALA LUMPUR: Three teenagers – a youth, his sister and his girlfriend – were arrested after they were believed to have assaulted and robbed an Indonesian maid at a double storey house in Kepong.
It is believed that the youth raped the 20-year-old maid as well.
The 18-year-old youth, his sister and his girlfriend, both 17, were detained yesterday afternoon in two separate operations.
City CID chief Senior Asst Comm II Ahmad Ibrahim confirmed the arrests but declined to comment further.
In the noon incident on Tuesday, the three were said to have coolly walked into the house in Bandar Menjalara and asked the maid if her employer was in.
They claimed that they were there to present the employer with prizes won in a competition.
Suspecting something amiss, the maid told them to leave but one of the teenagers took out a fake pistol while the 18-year-old whipped out a parang.
When the maid tried to stop them from ransacking the house, they forced her onto the sofa and the youth raped her at knifepoint.
The trio fled in a car with five handphones, a gold chain and RM60.
The maid later lodged a police report. It was learnt that the suspects were all dropouts.
KUALA LUMPUR: Three teenagers – a youth, his sister and his girlfriend – were arrested after they were believed to have assaulted and robbed an Indonesian maid at a double storey house in Kepong.
It is believed that the youth raped the 20-year-old maid as well.
The 18-year-old youth, his sister and his girlfriend, both 17, were detained yesterday afternoon in two separate operations.
City CID chief Senior Asst Comm II Ahmad Ibrahim confirmed the arrests but declined to comment further.
In the noon incident on Tuesday, the three were said to have coolly walked into the house in Bandar Menjalara and asked the maid if her employer was in.
They claimed that they were there to present the employer with prizes won in a competition.
Suspecting something amiss, the maid told them to leave but one of the teenagers took out a fake pistol while the 18-year-old whipped out a parang.
When the maid tried to stop them from ransacking the house, they forced her onto the sofa and the youth raped her at knifepoint.
The trio fled in a car with five handphones, a gold chain and RM60.
The maid later lodged a police report. It was learnt that the suspects were all dropouts.
Tuesday, 12 June 2007
2007 06: Torment at hands of junkie sons
The Star online. News. Nation. Monday June 11, 2007
AFTER calling his mother a dog and his father a pig, a 16-year-old student kicked his father’s head while he (father) was performing prayers, just because there was no food on the table, Harian Metro reported.
In another case, an 18-year-old threatened to strap a bomb on his mother if she did not give him money.
These were among the cases highlighted in a special report where inmates of Rumah Sahabat Insan dan Iman Malaysia (Sidim) revealed to reporters of the daily, nasty things they had done to their parents.
One of the inmates, known only as Azman from Kedah, said after getting involved with wrong company, he starting sniffing glue and became violent each time his demands were not fulfilled.
“I used to get involved in gang fights outside the house, but there was a day when after sniffing a bit too much glue, I was in my own world and became more violent.
“Since I was hungry and there was no food on the table, I become angry and confronted my parents who were praying at that time.
“I called my mother a dog and my father a pig, and seeing no reaction from them, I kicked my father’s head,” he said, adding that they could no longer tolerate his behaviour and called an ustaz, who referred him to Sidim for rehabilitation.
In the second case, the inmate known as Tahir from Kuala Lumpur said his mother was his “bank”, as whenever he needed money for his gangster friends and drugs, he would ask her.
AFTER calling his mother a dog and his father a pig, a 16-year-old student kicked his father’s head while he (father) was performing prayers, just because there was no food on the table, Harian Metro reported.
In another case, an 18-year-old threatened to strap a bomb on his mother if she did not give him money.
These were among the cases highlighted in a special report where inmates of Rumah Sahabat Insan dan Iman Malaysia (Sidim) revealed to reporters of the daily, nasty things they had done to their parents.
One of the inmates, known only as Azman from Kedah, said after getting involved with wrong company, he starting sniffing glue and became violent each time his demands were not fulfilled.
“I used to get involved in gang fights outside the house, but there was a day when after sniffing a bit too much glue, I was in my own world and became more violent.
“Since I was hungry and there was no food on the table, I become angry and confronted my parents who were praying at that time.
“I called my mother a dog and my father a pig, and seeing no reaction from them, I kicked my father’s head,” he said, adding that they could no longer tolerate his behaviour and called an ustaz, who referred him to Sidim for rehabilitation.
In the second case, the inmate known as Tahir from Kuala Lumpur said his mother was his “bank”, as whenever he needed money for his gangster friends and drugs, he would ask her.
Monday, 11 June 2007
2007 06: 4 men, youth charged with murder
NST online. Local News. 9/06/07
Rita Jong
KLANG: Four men and a juvenile were charged in the magistrate’s court yesterday with the murder of a photographer in Banting two months ago.
G. Satiaraj, Mohd Prabu Abdullah, R. Gunasegaran, M. Sattian, aged between 19 and 24, and a 17-year-old youth, were alleged to have murdered G. Nethyananthan, 25, also a wedding planner, at the Taman Sungai Kapar Indah water tank here.
The alleged offence was committed between 8.38pm on April 26 and 5.50pm on May 2.
Magistrate Mujib Saroji transferred the case to the Shah Alam High Court and fixed June 29 for mention.
Satiaraj was represented by counsel Gerard Lazarus, while the other four were not represented.
Satiaraj, Mohd Prabu and the juvenile were also slapped with another charge of raping Nethyananthan’s girlfriend.
They claimed trial to raping the 21-year-old sales promoter on top of the water tank in Sungai Kapar Indah, between 12.01 am and 6am on April 27.
Sessions Court judge M. Gunalan denied bail and fixed Jan 23 to 25 for trial.
Deputy public prosecutor Azmeer Mohd Sardi prosecuted both cases. It was reported last month that Nethyananthan was found buried with slash wounds on the body.
Nethyananthan and his girlfriend were reported missing on April 26 after they went to meet several clients on a business matter.
They were believed to have been abducted and bundled into two cars after they reached the meeting spot in Jalan Tengku Kelana, Klang.
Rita Jong
KLANG: Four men and a juvenile were charged in the magistrate’s court yesterday with the murder of a photographer in Banting two months ago.
G. Satiaraj, Mohd Prabu Abdullah, R. Gunasegaran, M. Sattian, aged between 19 and 24, and a 17-year-old youth, were alleged to have murdered G. Nethyananthan, 25, also a wedding planner, at the Taman Sungai Kapar Indah water tank here.
The alleged offence was committed between 8.38pm on April 26 and 5.50pm on May 2.
Magistrate Mujib Saroji transferred the case to the Shah Alam High Court and fixed June 29 for mention.
Satiaraj was represented by counsel Gerard Lazarus, while the other four were not represented.
Satiaraj, Mohd Prabu and the juvenile were also slapped with another charge of raping Nethyananthan’s girlfriend.
They claimed trial to raping the 21-year-old sales promoter on top of the water tank in Sungai Kapar Indah, between 12.01 am and 6am on April 27.
Sessions Court judge M. Gunalan denied bail and fixed Jan 23 to 25 for trial.
Deputy public prosecutor Azmeer Mohd Sardi prosecuted both cases. It was reported last month that Nethyananthan was found buried with slash wounds on the body.
Nethyananthan and his girlfriend were reported missing on April 26 after they went to meet several clients on a business matter.
They were believed to have been abducted and bundled into two cars after they reached the meeting spot in Jalan Tengku Kelana, Klang.
Friday, 18 May 2007
2007 05: Attempted suicide girl freed on probation
NST online. Local News. 18/05/07
JOHOR BARU: The High Court gave a 16-year-old girl, initially charged jointly with her father with murdering her three step-siblings, a new lease on life by releasing her on probation yesterday.
Judge Datuk Jeffrey Tan sentenced the girl to three years’ probation and to be placed in the care of her maternal uncle in Klang, Selangor, under the Child Act after she pleaded guilty to an amended charge of attempted suicide.
Deputy public prosecutor Shahrizal Shaari had earlier successfully applied to the court to amend the charge against the girl.
The girl was originally charged with her security guard father with murdering the three children aged 6, 5 and 3, at their home in Kulai between 10.30am and 3.30pm on Nov 20, 2004.
The girl who had spent nine months at the Kajang women’s prison after being arrested on Nov 20, 2004, and before her release on RM5,000 bail on Aug 1, 2005, appeared sad throughout the sentencing. In passing sentence, Tan told her: "Considering the fact that you were in remand while you were not even 14 years of age, you would have undergone a terrible experience.
"However, in general, the law says there is criminal liability after the age of 10 years as at that age one should naturally know what is right or wrong, at least about simple things in life.
"The court, therefore, is committed to sentence you to a three-year probation and to reside at your uncle’s house.
"Tan told the girl’s uncle to look after her with care as she needed emotional support.
The facts of the case stated that the girl was in a room at a house at Taman Muhibbah in Kulai with her father and three step-siblings at the time of the incident.
The girl had attempted suicide using a dhoti tied to the ceiling which she had tied around her neck while standing on a chair. She was rescued by a neighbour.
Shahrizal said he could not adduce further facts as it might be prejudicial to the girl’s father whose trial was still ongoing. In mitigation, the girl’s counsel, S. Gunapati, pleaded for a lenient sentence as his client was a young child living in an unhappy home situation and was depressed at the time of the incident.
"Her mother had died when she was seven and her father remarried. She had been living under the care of her stepmother and her four children.
"The family had just moved to Johor Baru a month before the incident and the stepmother was not at home due to some reason at the time of the incident."
Counsel K.S. Segaran and Bernard George are handling the father’s case which was postponed to June 19.
JOHOR BARU: The High Court gave a 16-year-old girl, initially charged jointly with her father with murdering her three step-siblings, a new lease on life by releasing her on probation yesterday.
Judge Datuk Jeffrey Tan sentenced the girl to three years’ probation and to be placed in the care of her maternal uncle in Klang, Selangor, under the Child Act after she pleaded guilty to an amended charge of attempted suicide.
Deputy public prosecutor Shahrizal Shaari had earlier successfully applied to the court to amend the charge against the girl.
The girl was originally charged with her security guard father with murdering the three children aged 6, 5 and 3, at their home in Kulai between 10.30am and 3.30pm on Nov 20, 2004.
The girl who had spent nine months at the Kajang women’s prison after being arrested on Nov 20, 2004, and before her release on RM5,000 bail on Aug 1, 2005, appeared sad throughout the sentencing. In passing sentence, Tan told her: "Considering the fact that you were in remand while you were not even 14 years of age, you would have undergone a terrible experience.
"However, in general, the law says there is criminal liability after the age of 10 years as at that age one should naturally know what is right or wrong, at least about simple things in life.
"The court, therefore, is committed to sentence you to a three-year probation and to reside at your uncle’s house.
"Tan told the girl’s uncle to look after her with care as she needed emotional support.
The facts of the case stated that the girl was in a room at a house at Taman Muhibbah in Kulai with her father and three step-siblings at the time of the incident.
The girl had attempted suicide using a dhoti tied to the ceiling which she had tied around her neck while standing on a chair. She was rescued by a neighbour.
Shahrizal said he could not adduce further facts as it might be prejudicial to the girl’s father whose trial was still ongoing. In mitigation, the girl’s counsel, S. Gunapati, pleaded for a lenient sentence as his client was a young child living in an unhappy home situation and was depressed at the time of the incident.
"Her mother had died when she was seven and her father remarried. She had been living under the care of her stepmother and her four children.
"The family had just moved to Johor Baru a month before the incident and the stepmother was not at home due to some reason at the time of the incident."
Counsel K.S. Segaran and Bernard George are handling the father’s case which was postponed to June 19.
Thursday, 26 April 2007
2006 11: Child activist on family laws
The Star online. News. Opinion. Monday November 6, 2006
During a recent visit, retired judge Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss talked to SHAILA KOSHY about child laws, how the British legal system handles marital disputes among immigrant families and the lifetime anonymity she ordered for the two boys who killed toddler Jamie Bulger.
IT would be an understatement to say that Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss cares about children.
“I feel passionately about children being removed from their homes.
“I care more about children removed from the home, their school, their friends, their own bedroom, their own toys, and suddenly yanked into another country by a parent – mother or father – who chooses to leave without either of the consent of the other parent or a court order.
“That is wrong and it’s unjust to the child but it’s done by parents.”
“I care more about children removed from the home, their school, their friends, their own bedroom, their own toys, and suddenly yanked into another country by a parent – mother or father – who chooses to leave without either of the consent of the other parent or a court order.
“That is wrong and it’s unjust to the child but it’s done by parents.”
We were talking about child abduction and transnational jurisdiction in our “global village” when Lady Butler-Sloss, the former President of the Family Division in England, suddenly made this impassioned speech.
As she noted: “In a global village, it is important that children should be able to move freely between countries and to be able to visit the countries of each of their parents and visit relatives and learn the culture.”
Earlier in her public lecture on Current Developments in Family Law, Lady Butler-Sloss had stressed the importance of closer ties between countries that had and had not signed The Hague Convention on Child Abduction.
Touching on the two meetings in Malta between the two groups of countries, she said she was pleased that 21 countries, including eight Islamic countries, with diverse family laws and including eight Islamic countries had agreed on fundamental principles of family law in relation to the wrongful removal or retention of children across transnational boundaries.
Retired in 2005, Lady Butler-Sloss, is a Bencher of the Inner Temple in London and was in Malaysia for the launch of the Malaysian Inner Temple Alumni on Sept 15 and to give a lecture, organised by the Asean Law Association and Inner Temple’s first international alumni, the next day.
She is very firm – she refused to take any questions on her appointment as coroner for the inquest into the death of Diana, the Princess of Wales – but is warm at the same time.
Lady Butler-Sloss has a wry sense of humour and you get the feeling that if you had to appear before her, as long as you knew your stuff, she wouldn’t have you for breakfast.
Talking about parental alienation, recognised as a syndrome in America but not Britain, and whether the mother – the guilty party in many instances – needed psychiatric evaluation, she said: “We don’t think the mother needs a psychiatrist; what she needs is a kick up the pants. This is an emotional problem, not a legal problem.”
With more foreigners moving to Britain and since a lot of their family issues relate to culture and religion, has British family law been able to cope or does Parliament expect migrants to submit to the laws of their new home?
“The present president of the Family Division, in a lecture he gave at Belfast, is aware of the cultural differences among people who come to the UK,” Lady Butler-Sloss replied.
“An example he gives is how grandmothers are often the primary carers in African countries. And so we have to recognise cultural differences.
“But if people choose to live in England, the basic English law is the one that should apply, although we will be sympathetic to cultural differences which are acceptable to everybody in that group.”
Lady Butler-Sloss is no stranger to controversy; she was a favourite target for Fathers 4 Justice, a support group for fathers who claimed she was sexist. One decision that caught the attention of the media here in 2001 was her order granting lifetime anonymity for Robert Thompson and Jon Venables who had been convicted of the killing of two-year-old Jamie Bulger in 1993.
She explained: “It was a shocking murder but they were 10. They were sentenced to life but the tariff (time they served) was eight years’ jail. That meant they would come out before going into an adult prison.
“Both had clearly repented and had had intensive help from psychiatrists and so on.
“They were scared stiff about being let out. There were vigilante groups out there saying openly they would kill the boys if they could find them and I had very strong evidence (for that).
Earlier in her public lecture on Current Developments in Family Law, Lady Butler-Sloss had stressed the importance of closer ties between countries that had and had not signed The Hague Convention on Child Abduction.
Touching on the two meetings in Malta between the two groups of countries, she said she was pleased that 21 countries, including eight Islamic countries, with diverse family laws and including eight Islamic countries had agreed on fundamental principles of family law in relation to the wrongful removal or retention of children across transnational boundaries.
Retired in 2005, Lady Butler-Sloss, is a Bencher of the Inner Temple in London and was in Malaysia for the launch of the Malaysian Inner Temple Alumni on Sept 15 and to give a lecture, organised by the Asean Law Association and Inner Temple’s first international alumni, the next day.
She is very firm – she refused to take any questions on her appointment as coroner for the inquest into the death of Diana, the Princess of Wales – but is warm at the same time.
Lady Butler-Sloss has a wry sense of humour and you get the feeling that if you had to appear before her, as long as you knew your stuff, she wouldn’t have you for breakfast.
Talking about parental alienation, recognised as a syndrome in America but not Britain, and whether the mother – the guilty party in many instances – needed psychiatric evaluation, she said: “We don’t think the mother needs a psychiatrist; what she needs is a kick up the pants. This is an emotional problem, not a legal problem.”
With more foreigners moving to Britain and since a lot of their family issues relate to culture and religion, has British family law been able to cope or does Parliament expect migrants to submit to the laws of their new home?
“The present president of the Family Division, in a lecture he gave at Belfast, is aware of the cultural differences among people who come to the UK,” Lady Butler-Sloss replied.
“An example he gives is how grandmothers are often the primary carers in African countries. And so we have to recognise cultural differences.
“But if people choose to live in England, the basic English law is the one that should apply, although we will be sympathetic to cultural differences which are acceptable to everybody in that group.”
Lady Butler-Sloss is no stranger to controversy; she was a favourite target for Fathers 4 Justice, a support group for fathers who claimed she was sexist. One decision that caught the attention of the media here in 2001 was her order granting lifetime anonymity for Robert Thompson and Jon Venables who had been convicted of the killing of two-year-old Jamie Bulger in 1993.
She explained: “It was a shocking murder but they were 10. They were sentenced to life but the tariff (time they served) was eight years’ jail. That meant they would come out before going into an adult prison.
“Both had clearly repented and had had intensive help from psychiatrists and so on.
“They were scared stiff about being let out. There were vigilante groups out there saying openly they would kill the boys if they could find them and I had very strong evidence (for that).
“At the time I saw it (the application for the gag order), they were under 18, so they were within our definition of children.
“The European Convention on Human Rights has a number of inalienable rights and a major right is the right to life and I was satisfied that this would be breached if these boys were let out into the community and were identified by the press and photographed.
“Therefore, I decided they had to have lifetime anonymity. Even murderers are entitled to stay alive; they are entitled to repent and then to be rehabilitated.
“And if it is the judgment of Lord Chief Justice that they be let out, I had to make sure they’d live, at least to try and live the lives of good citizens.”
Lady Butler-Sloss has not been taking it easy since she retired in April last year. She sits on a panel that appoints QC (Queen’s Counsel), is chairman of the St Paul’s Cathedral Advisory Council, (University of West England) chancellor and president of an NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) appeal on stopping paedophiles and child abuse.
“I give a lot of lectures. I have a house in the country that I get to when I can, I have a husband, two children, six grandchildren and I’ve been to three conferences recently,” she said in one long breath.
And what does she do for fun?
“Spend time with husband, garden occasionally; take the dog for a walk.”
Lady Butler-Sloss, who finds Malaysians “the most hospitable people”, said she would love to come back here.
“The European Convention on Human Rights has a number of inalienable rights and a major right is the right to life and I was satisfied that this would be breached if these boys were let out into the community and were identified by the press and photographed.
“Therefore, I decided they had to have lifetime anonymity. Even murderers are entitled to stay alive; they are entitled to repent and then to be rehabilitated.
“And if it is the judgment of Lord Chief Justice that they be let out, I had to make sure they’d live, at least to try and live the lives of good citizens.”
Lady Butler-Sloss has not been taking it easy since she retired in April last year. She sits on a panel that appoints QC (Queen’s Counsel), is chairman of the St Paul’s Cathedral Advisory Council, (University of West England) chancellor and president of an NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) appeal on stopping paedophiles and child abuse.
“I give a lot of lectures. I have a house in the country that I get to when I can, I have a husband, two children, six grandchildren and I’ve been to three conferences recently,” she said in one long breath.
And what does she do for fun?
“Spend time with husband, garden occasionally; take the dog for a walk.”
Lady Butler-Sloss, who finds Malaysians “the most hospitable people”, said she would love to come back here.
Lady Butler-Sloss: Believes firmly in the principle of right to life
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
