High Court in Sibu orders retrial for elderly man accused of sexual offence against disabled woman

SIBU (March 6): The High Court here has ordered a retrial in the Sessions Court for a senior citizen accused of committing a sexual offence against a woman with disabilities.

Judge Wong Siong Tung ruled that the case must be heard again under the original charge of Section 377A of the Penal Code before a different Sessions Court judge.

In delivering the decision, he set aside the earlier conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court on Sept 6, 2024, under Section 354 of the Penal Code.

The court also ordered that the retrial resume from the stage after the testimony of the prosecution’s first witness, with the evidence already recorded remaining part of the case.

The prosecution was also given the discretion to amend the charge to a lesser offence during the retrial if necessary and in accordance with legal requirements.

On Sept 6, the Sessions Court had sentenced the 61-year-old man to a fine of RM8,000 or eight months’ imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of using criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of the disabled victim under Section 354 of the Penal Code.

However, the victim’s family applied for a judicial review, arguing that the fine was too lenient and did not reflect the seriousness of the offence committed against a vulnerable victim.

Under the original charge under Section 377A of the Penal Code, the accused was alleged to have committed an act of sexual intercourse against the order of nature with the victim on June 14, 2022, at about 7am at a house here.

Section 377A carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment and whipping, while Section 354 provides for up to 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine, whipping, or any two of these punishments.

In his ruling, Wong said imposing only an RM8,000 fine for a sexual offence involving a vulnerable and intellectually disabled victim was clearly inadequate.

He also noted that the plea negotiation leading to the reduced charge had been conducted informally and did not comply with the procedures required under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Because of these irregularities and the lenient sentence imposed, he said both the conviction and sentence could not be allowed to stand.

Wong added that ordering a retrial was the fairest course of action to ensure justice was properly served.

Also present in court were the victim’s family lawyers Boston Ho, assisted by Clement Hii, Sii Yew Nei and Tevaasiny Vijayakumar.