Pendakwa Raya v Mat Salleh Bin Jalani

Appellant(s): Pendakwa Raya

Respondent(s): Mat Salleh Bin Jalani

• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• The respondent, a bowling coach, was charged under section 354 of the Penal Code for outraging the modesty of a 13-year-old athlete (the victim) in his car at a bowling centre car park in May 2017, with similar misconduct allegedly continuing until 2020.
• The victim only disclosed the abuse to a fellow trainee in 2021, fearing no one would believe him, after which a police report was lodged; two other young trainees also alleged they were abused by the respondent and witnessed abuse of the victim.
• The Magistrates' Court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to 18 months' imprisonment, but the High Court on appeal acquitted him, holding that the victim's evidence was not "unusually convincing" due to the delay in reporting, absence of eyewitnesses to the first incident, and insufficiency of the other trainees' evidence as similar fact evidence.

• Whether the victim's uncorroborated testimony in a sexual offence case met the threshold of being "unusually convincing" to sustain a conviction.
• Whether delay in lodging a police report and failure to immediately complain to others was fatal to the credibility of the complainant's evidence.
• Whether the High Court was justified in disturbing the trial court's findings on witness credibility, given the trial court's advantage of observing demeanour.

• The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in finding the victim's evidence insufficiently convincing, noting his testimony was consistent, credible, and corroborated by his mother and two other trainees who witnessed the abuse.
• Citing established authority, the Court held that delay in reporting sexual offences is often reasonable due to fear, shame, family reluctance, or concern for reputation, and such delay does not automatically undermine a complainant's credibility.
• The Court unanimously allowed the Prosecution's appeal, restored the conviction under section 354 of the Penal Code, and imposed a 2-year prison sentence to commence after the respondent completes a separate 6-year sentence under the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017.