Supreme Court upholds mother's 18-year prison sentence for facilitating daughter's sexual abuse

The Supreme Court has reinstated the prison sentence imposed on a mother convicted of facilitating the sexual abuse of her daughter and concealing the offences, overturning a High Court ruling that had quashed her conviction.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Friday that the High Court had erred in overturning the conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrate Court.

The woman, who is from an island in northern Maldives, was charged by the state in September 2016 with two offences relating to the sexual abuse of her daughter.

The first charge concerned facilitating a sexual offence against a child while occupying a position of trust. Prosecutors alleged that, beginning in 2014, the woman encouraged Mohamed Hussain, of H. Golden Shavaa, to engage in sexual acts with her daughter on several occasions and took steps to facilitate the abuse.

The second charge concerned knowingly failing to report the sexual abuse of a child and concealing the offences.

In 2018, the Magistrate Court found the woman guilty of both charges and sentenced her to 18 years and six months in prison.

The woman appealed the conviction to the High Court, arguing that the lower court had failed to provide her with documents necessary to prepare her defence.

She also challenged the charge of failing to report the abuse, arguing that it concerned an offence different from the one investigated by the authorities.

In 2021, the High Court accepted both grounds of appeal and overturned the convictions.

The state subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the High Court's decision and reinstate the prison sentence.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had been wrong to overturn the convictions on the grounds raised by the defence.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the Magistrate Court's records did not establish conclusively whether the relevant case documents had been formally handed over to the woman.

However, it noted that, before the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Act, documents were commonly provided during court hearings without requiring recipients to sign a separate register acknowledging receipt.

Considering the practices of the criminal justice system at the time, the statements made during the proceedings and the manner in which the trial was conducted, the Supreme Court found it more likely that the woman had received the relevant documents than that she had not.

The court also noted that the woman had not complained about missing documents while the trial was taking place at the Magistrate Court.

Regarding the charge of failing to report the sexual abuse, the Supreme Court found that investigators had questioned the woman about the allegation during the investigation.

The ruling also referred to a statement she had given to investigators in which she acknowledged knowing that her daughter was being sexually abused and concealing the matter.

The Supreme Court further addressed the woman's argument that the charge of failing to report the abuse had not been properly investigated.

It held that, before the Criminal Procedure Act came into force, the prosecution was not required to specify the relevant law and statutory provision in the manner subsequently required under the legislation.

The court therefore concluded that, under the procedures applicable at the time, the charge had been brought appropriately.

The three judges unanimously overturned the High Court's ruling and upheld the conviction and prison sentence imposed by the Magistrate Court.