SHAH ALAM, Sept 20 — A stabbing at a secondary school in Bandar Utama, Petaling Jaya, in October last year that claimed the life of a Form Four student shocked the nation.
In response, the state government allocated RM1.5 million for the school-based mental health programme PeerZ, which began this year.
After nine months of proceedings, the Shah Alam High Court acquitted a 15-year-old boy of murdering his schoolmate last week, after ruling that he was of unsound mind when the incident occurred.
Judge Adlin Abdul Majid made the ruling after finding that the defence had successfully established the element of insanity under Section 84 of the Penal Code.
A total of 11 witnesses were called throughout the proceedings, with the defence calling two witnesses — the teenager and Dr Ian Lloyd, a psychiatrist from Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta.
The accused’s lawyer Kitson Foong said the court ordered his client to be sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment after finding that he was of unsound mind at the time of the incident.
He further explained the decision as follows:
Why does Section 84 of the Penal Code apply in this case?
Section 84 stipulates that an act does not constitute an offence if, at the time it was committed, the person was of unsound mind or did not know that the act was wrong or contrary to law.
In this case, the main issue at trial was not whether the teenager had committed the act of killing, but his mental state at the time of the incident.
If the teenager was acquitted and discharged, why did the court still order him to be detained at Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Perak?
The court found that the teenager was of unsound mind at the time of the incident. As a result, he could not legally be convicted of murder, and the court instead recorded a verdict of acquittal and discharge on the grounds of unsoundness of mind.
However, the acquittal does not mean that he is free to return home.
Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the court is required to ensure that a person acquitted on such grounds is placed in safe custody.
Can the hospital detention order be considered a form of punishment?
No. Legally, the order is not a punishment because there was no conviction. Punishment is imposed only after a person is found guilty, whereas the teenager was acquitted of the charge.
In short, the law does not punish a person who is found to be of unsound mind, but neither does it allow such an individual to return to society without appropriate treatment and supervision.
What is the purpose of detaining the teenager in the hospital?
The detention serves two main purposes: to protect public safety and ensure that the teenager receives appropriate psychiatric treatment for his mental condition.
There is no fixed duration for the detention. Unlike a prison sentence, which has a specified term, the detention continues indefinitely unless His Royal Highness the Sultan of Selangor approves his release.
Is the teenager free to leave the hospital or request home-based treatment?
The court order imposes a significant restriction on his liberty. He cannot leave the hospital at his own discretion or at the request of his family.
Does the teenager’s detention differ from that of other patients receiving treatment at the same hospital?
Individuals detained under such court orders are typically placed in a forensic psychiatric unit or ward, which is designated for patients involved in court proceedings or criminal matters.
In terms of treatment, the teenager receives standard psychiatric care, including medication, counselling, therapy, and rehabilitation, as determined by specialist doctors.
However, there are significant differences compared with other patients, including stricter security measures, restricted movement, and mandatory periodic assessments.
