Schools legally liable for safety of children under their care, says educationist
Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities lecturer Marja Azlima Omar said schools should take measures to prevent any harm to the children on campus.
Marja said schools were duty-bound and legally responsible to ensure a safe environment, as their responsibility was based on the legal principles of laws, including "in loco parentis".
"The principle of 'in loco parentis', derived from Latin meaning 'in the place of a parent', places a legal duty on teachers and schools to act in the best interests of students, particularly in matters of safety and supervision," she said.
"Over the years, numerous court cases have reinforced this principle. In the context of school bullying, this duty involves ensuring a safe environment and taking proactive measures to prevent harm, injury, or tragedy," Marja added.
According to her, under the law of tort, a breach of the duty of care amounts to negligence.
However, she said, for cases where bullying is recurrent or known to occur frequently in certain schools, the concept of strict liability may also be considered.
"Strict liability holds a party responsible for harm without the need to prove negligence or fault.
"In the education context, this means that if bullying is proven to be widespread, the school can be held liable even if reasonable preventive measures were taken.
"In simple terms, once bullying is proven to have occurred within the school environment, the law can place responsibility on the institution, she said.
She added that this shifts the focus from solely blaming the perpetrator to also evaluating the protection systems and safety measures in place.
Marja said the legal responsibility was in line with Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which Malaysia has ratified.
"This article obliges governments to take legislative, administrative, social, and educational measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury, abuse, neglect, or exploitation.
"This international commitment further strengthens the obligation of schools to act proactively in ensuring the safety of children under their care," she added.
Marja said her explanation was not to accuse or blame any particular school but to raise public awareness of the existing legal and rights-based frameworks in place to protect students.
"Bullying should never be tolerated or accepted as tradition. When the law recognises the duty of care, it equips society with the means to ensure that schools remain safe spaces for students," Marja said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
14 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Child offenders not exempt from criminal liability, says ministry
KUALA LUMPUR: A child offender remains criminally liable despite their age, with cases involving children subject to the same legal standards under the Penal Code as adults. The Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister's Department, in a set of frequently asked questions (FAQ) released today, said criminal liability does not change even when the accused is a child. However, it explained that there are differences in court proceedings involving child offenders, as provided under the Child Act 2001. These include safeguarding a child's rights and dignity, prohibiting disclosure of their identity, and ensuring hearings are conducted in private to protect their welfare. The Child Act, it said, does not remove punishment for child offenders but provides procedural safeguards and protection, aligning Malaysia's legal framework with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. "Every person is responsible for their criminal acts, including children under the age of 18. "The Penal Code and other punitive laws do not exempt anyone from liability," the FAQ sheet read. It also said that the Act protects all children — whether victims, witnesses, or the accused — and clarified that criminal punishments remain under the Penal Code or other punitive laws. The FAQ follows heightened public interest in cases involving children, particularly the bullying case of Zara Qairina Mahathir, who died on July 17 while receiving treatment in hospital after reportedly falling from the third floor of her hostel building. An autopsy later confirmed An autopsy later confirmed she died from a severe traumatic brain injury with hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy — brain damage caused by a lack of oxygen and blood flow. The injuries were consistent with a fall. Earlier today, five teenagers accused of bullying that led to Zara's death were charged under Section 507C(1) of the Penal Code for using abusive or insulting words that caused distress and fear. The offence carries a maximum one-year jail term, a fine, or both. All five pleaded not guilty All five pleaded not guilty.
The Sun
15 hours ago
- The Sun
Peter Anthony to serve three-year sentence after appeal dismissed
PUTRAJAYA: Former Sabah Infrastructure Development Minister Datuk Peter Anthony will begin serving his three-year prison sentence immediately. The Court of Appeal today dismissed his final bid to review his conviction for document falsification. A three-member panel unanimously rejected Peter's application for a review. Justice Datuk Azman Abdullah stated there was no breach of natural justice in the original proceedings. Justice Azman emphasized that Peter had been accorded full rights to be heard during his appeal. The court found no miscarriage of justice regarding a key police report evidence. 'The absence of the police report issue in the broad grounds does not amount to injustice,' Justice Azman declared. He confirmed the matter had been thoroughly addressed in the full judgment. The police report in question was filed by the late Mohd Shukur Mohd Din in 2018. The former UMS deputy vice-chancellor claimed his MACC statement was recorded under pressure. Mohd Shukur alleged the final paragraph of his statement was fabricated to implicate Peter. This report was only discovered after Peter's trial had concluded. Peter's lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla argued the previous panel failed to properly consider this evidence. He claimed this omission prejudiced his client and resulted in injustice. 'The deliberations in the full judgment amounted to an afterthought,' Haniff contended. He requested the case be remitted to the Sessions Court for retrial. Deputy Public Prosecutor Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin countered these arguments effectively. He maintained the police report issue had been extensively argued before the appellate court. Wan Shaharuddin stated no special circumstances justified granting Peter's review application. The prosecution's position ultimately prevailed with the court's ruling. Peter was convicted of falsifying a UMS letter related to a maintenance contract. The offence occurred at the Prime Minister's office between June and August 2014. The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court originally sentenced him to three years imprisonment and a RM50,000 fine in May 2022. Higher courts subsequently upheld this conviction and sentence. Peter has already paid his RM50,000 fine as required by the original judgment. His imprisonment now proceeds following today's decisive ruling. As Melalap assemblyman, Peter will likely lose his state seat due to this conviction. The Sabah State Assembly has yet to make any formal announcement regarding his status. This case concludes all legal avenues available to challenge his conviction. The judicial process has now reached its final resolution. - Bernama
Sinar Daily
15 hours ago
- Sinar Daily
Peter Anthony to serve three-year sentence after Court of Appeal dismisses review
PUTRAJAYA - Former Sabah infrastructure development minister Datuk Peter Anthony will serve his three-year prison sentence after failing in his bid to review his conviction and sentence for falsifying documents related to a Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) maintenance and service contract. A Court of Appeal three-member panel here, consisting Justices Datuk Azman Abdullah, Datuk Noorin Badaruddin and Datuk Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz, today dismissed Peter's review application. In reading the court's decision, Justice Azman said there was no breach of natural justice as the applicant (Peter) had been accorded the right to be heard at his appeal. He added that the absence of the issue relating to a police report lodged by a witness, the late Mohd Shukur Mohd Din, in the broad grounds of the Court of Appeal did not amount to a miscarriage of justice as the matter had been clearly addressed in the appellate court's full judgment. "We find that there was no miscarriage of justice as P4A (the police report) was argued extensively,' he said. Justice Azman also said the court's assumption has been supported by the Court of Appeal's full grounds of judgment, where the issue on the police report was thoroughly discussed, adding that it was not the court's duty to rehear evidence and facts that have been decided on. In the police report dated Aug 9, 2018, Mohd Shukur, then UMS deputy vice-chancellor, claimed that his statement recorded by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in Kota Kinabalu on July 20, 2017 was untrue, as he had been placed under pressure. He alleged that the last paragraph of his statement was concocted to implicate Peter. The police report was only discovered by Peter after his trial concluded. In February last year, he applied to the Court of Appeal to adduce new evidence under Section 61 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. The court admitted the police report, though Mohd Shukur had since passed away. Peter sought a review of the March 4 decision this year by a different Court of Appeal panel which upheld his conviction, three-year prison term and RM50,000 fine imposed by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court in May 2022. The 54-year-old has already paid the fine. Former Sabah infrastructure development minister Datuk Peter Anthony arrives at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya, today, for the hearing of his review application of his conviction and sentence for falsifying documents related to UMS maintenance and service contract. - Photo by Bernama The Kuala Lumpur High Court had, on April 18, 2023, affirmed the Sessions Court's ruling. Peter then appealed to the Court of Appeal but lost, prompting him to file the present review application. He was charged, in his capacity as managing director of Asli Jati Sdn Bhd, with falsifying a letter from UMS' office of the deputy vice-chancellor dated June 9, 2014 by inserting false statements with the intent to deceive. The offence was allegedly committed at the office of the principal private secretary to the Prime Minister, Perdana Putra, between June 13 and Aug 21, 2014. In today's proceedings, Peter's lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla argued that the previous Court of Appeal panel had failed to directly address and give proper judicial consideration to the police report, which he claimed had prejudiced his client and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. He contended that although the deliberations were eventually included in the grounds of judgment issued on Aug 1, several months after the court delivered its broad grounds, it amounted to an afterthought. He urged that the case be remitted to the Sessions Court for a retrial. Deputy Public Prosecutor Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, however, submitted that there was no breach of natural justice as the issue of the police report had been extensively argued before the appellate court. He said there were also no special circumstances to justify granting Peter's review application. Following today's ruling, Peter, who is the Melalap assemblyman, is likely to lose his seat as he has exhausted all legal avenues to set aside his conviction and sentence. However, no formal announcement has been made by the Sabah State Assembly on his status. - BERNAMA
