Molesting 13-year-old: Aussie freed
Published on: Friday, May 16, 2025
Published on: Fri, May 16, 2025
By: Lagatah Toyos Text Size: Jack (right) with his counsel Liew Hon Min after the proceedings yesterday. TAWAU: An elderly Australian citizen was freed from a charge of physical sexual harassment against a 13-year-old girl after the Tawau High Court on Thursday allowed his appeal to overturn the conviction and five-year prison sentence. Judge Datuk Duncan Sikodol made the decision for Jack Kwong, 75, who appealed against the sentence and conviction imposed on him by the Sessions Court Judge.
Advertisement In his judgment on Thursday, Duncan stated that although a conviction can be based on uncorroborated testimony of a child under Section 18 of the Act, the trial judge must exercise caution when convicting solely based on a child's testimony. He added that the prosecution's failure to call the victim's mother and her aunty who were key witnesses, left several unanswered reasonable doubts. On Sept 26, 2024, Kwong was sentenced to five years' jail after the Tawau Sessions Court found that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted Kwong. He was accused of physically sexually assaulting the victim at a house in Taman Pick Yard, Jalan Mawar, here between 7.20am and 8am on May 20, 2023, by allegedly kissing and molesting her. The offence under Section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, which provides for a jail term of up to 20 years and whipping, on conviction. This case involved a cross-appeal, with the prosecution appealing the length of the prison term, while Kwong appealed against his conviction and sentence. Kwong was formerly a Malaysian citizen before obtaining Australian citizenship, and he reportedly returned to the country every two years to visit friends. * Follow us on Instagram and join our Telegram and/or WhatsApp channel(s) for the latest news you don't want to miss. * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available.
Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
17 minutes ago
- The Star
Court sets Aug 19 for decision in activist's appeal over challenge to online speech law
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has fixed Aug 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier Wednesday (June 11). Heidy Quah Gaik Li, the founder of Refuge for Refugees is claiming the use of the words "offensive' and annoy' in Section 233 of the Act are invalid as it goes against two fundamental human rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is "obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with "intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. In September 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, leading her to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The hearing today was a continuation of proceedings that had begun earlier. Justice Lee was serving as a Court of Appeal judge before being elevated to the Federal Court in May this year. During today's hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin representing the Malaysian government submitted that speech involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech or incitement to violence are not expressions protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He argued that the right to free speech should be used to disseminate truth, respect for human dignity and perform essential informing function. On the other hand, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing Quah argued the words "offensive' or annoy contained in Section 233 is inconsistent with Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, namely the right to equality and freedom of speech. He argued that the two words in Section 233 are not a "permissible restriction' under public order as prescribed in the Federal Constitution. In July 2021, Quah, 31, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making "offensive' online comments in a Facebook post. In April the following year, the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) due to the charge under section 233(1)(a) being defective. - Bernama
The Sun
22 minutes ago
- The Sun
Appeals Court set Aug 19 for decision in activist's appeal over challenge to online speech law
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. Heidy Quah Gaik Li, the founder of Refuge for Refugees is claiming the use of the words 'offensive' and annoy' in Section 233 of the Act are invalid as it goes against two fundamental human rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with 'intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. In Sept 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, leading her to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The hearing today was a continuation of proceedings that had begun earlier. Justice Lee was serving as a Court of Appeal judge before being elevated to the Federal Court in May this year. During today's hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin representing the Malaysian government submitted that speech involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech or incitement to violence are not expressions protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He argued that the right to free speech should be used to disseminate truth, respect for human dignity and perform essential informing function. On the other hand, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing Quah argued the words 'offensive' or annoy contained in Section 233 is inconsistent with Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, namely the right to equality and freedom of speech. He argued that the two words in Section 233 are not a 'permissible restriction' under public order as prescribed in the Federal Constitution. In July 2021, Quah, 31, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making 'offensive' online comments in a Facebook post. In April the following year, the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) due to the charge under section 233(1)(a) being defective.
The Sun
22 minutes ago
- The Sun
Court to rule Aug 19 on activist's challenge to CMA provision
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. Heidy Quah Gaik Li, the founder of Refuge for Refugees is claiming the use of the words 'offensive' and annoy' in Section 233 of the Act are invalid as it goes against two fundamental human rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with 'intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. In Sept 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, leading her to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The hearing today was a continuation of proceedings that had begun earlier. Justice Lee was serving as a Court of Appeal judge before being elevated to the Federal Court in May this year. During today's hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin representing the Malaysian government submitted that speech involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech or incitement to violence are not expressions protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He argued that the right to free speech should be used to disseminate truth, respect for human dignity and perform essential informing function. On the other hand, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing Quah argued the words 'offensive' or annoy contained in Section 233 is inconsistent with Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, namely the right to equality and freedom of speech. He argued that the two words in Section 233 are not a 'permissible restriction' under public order as prescribed in the Federal Constitution. In July 2021, Quah, 31, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making 'offensive' online comments in a Facebook post. In April the following year, the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) due to the charge under section 233(1)(a) being defective.
