Sessions Court judge Noor Hisham Mohd Jaafar said a paltry sentence was indeed unwarranted.
“In my view, legislative intent is better effectuated, and protection of children is better achieved by imposing a sentence which drives home a clear reminder to all and sundry that offences against children, in all forms, will not be tolerated,” he said.
Noor Hisham said offenders should face the music under the Child Act and gone are the days where they could get away scot-free.
He made the remarks in his 31-page judgment in imposing a RM10,000 fine or a year’s jail on caretaker Norhafizah Isa, 26, for ill-treating a one-year-old at a childcare centre in Cyberjaya on May 30 last year.
Section 31(1) of the Act allows for a fine not exceeding RM50,000 or to a jail term of up to 20 years, or both.
A bond of good behaviour for three years with RM2,000 bail and one surety was also imposed, in accordance with Section 31(2)(a) of the Act.
Noor Hisham also ordered the accused to perform 50 aggregate hours of community service, within six months from a court order.
The accused admitted that she pulled the child’s ears while he was under her supervision.
Around 6.30pm on May 30, last year, the complainant who is the child’s mother went to the centre to fetch the child and returned home.
Upon inspection, she noticed the child had redness on the tip of his ears. She then took him to a clinic where bruise marks resulting from physical assault were discovered.
The following day, the complainant went to the childcare centre to inspect the closed-circuit television footage which revealed that the accused had been pulling the child’s ears.
In mitigation, her lawyer Hazizah Kassim pleaded for leniency as she had pleaded guilty in the first instance soon after the charge was read and that she was a first-time offender.
Hazizah said Norhafizah appeared to be remorseful as she apologised for her action.
Deputy public prosecutor Nurul Faraheen Yahya in her submission said public interest necessitated a heavy sentence to reflect the seriousness and gravity of the offence.
Noor Hisham said sentencing was a judicial discretion and did not have a binding precedent based on past rulings. He said he was of the view that a custodial sentence would not be appropriate.
Furthermore, he said it attracted additional orders of a bond with sureties to be of good behaviour and community service.
Noor Hisham said in assessing the sentence against the accused, he was particularly “alive to the effect such a sentence may have on the accused and her chance of returning to orderly behaviour without the necessity of being incarcerated behind the prison wall.
“Having drawn a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors, I have no hesitation in holding that a fine is a condign sentence befitting the offence,” he said.
He added that medical findings led to the conclusion that the injury the accused inflicted on the child was not severe in nature.