In May 2005, the defendant approached the victim’s grandmother to offer the victim a job to work as a nanny in the defendant’s house. When the grandmother refused, the defendant offered her a payment of Rp. 500,000 (approx $50) for the victim and the grandmother then agreed to send the victim with the defendant. The victim worked as a nanny in the defendant’s house for three months, but then returned to her grandmother’s house thereafter as she did not like working there and was missing her home.
Thereafter, sometime in May 2006, the defendant once again approached the victim and offered her a job as a nanny in the defendant’s house. This time the victim left without the knowledge of her grandmother. However, instead of taking the victim to the defendant’s house, she was taken to Jambi to Café Leo 88. There the victim was forced to work as a sex worker and if she refused, the defendant would threaten her by not giving her food. As the victim was too scared to refuse, she continued to work as a sex worker and would earn between Rp. 70,000 – Rp. 100,000 (approx $100) per client. Whatever money the victim earned was handed over to the defendant, from which the defendant took 50% for herself, a certain portion was taken as payment for the boarding and lodging of the victim and then if there was anything left it was given to the victim as her fee.
When finally the victim could not take it anymore she contacted a Mr. Budi whom she knew and asked him to take her away from here. When the defendant realised that the victim had left, she went over to Budi’s house and requested for the victim to come back. When the victim refused, the defendant told Budi that he could take the victim provided he paid the defendant a sum of Rp 1,500,000 (approx $150) which the victim owed to the defendant. During this same time, the aunt of the victim happened to stop by the Café with her friend and as a chance meeting saw the victim there. She urged the victim to return with her and in exchange had to compensate Budi for the sum he had paid the defendant.
Thereafter, the victim’s aunt took her away and reported the activities of the defendant to the local police who arrested the defendant under section 296 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Indonésie1st Instance:
20 December 2006
Citation no 526/Pid/B/2006/PN.Jbi
The Court sentenced the defendant with 5 year imprisonment and a fine payment of Rp 1,000,000 (approx $100).
2nd Instance:
The court sentenced the defendant with 3 years imprisonment and a fine payment of Rp 500,000 (approx $50).
3rd Instance:
High Court of Jambi
The court gave the defendant a sentence of 4 years imprisonment and a fine payment of Rp 500,000 (approx $50).
Law No 23 of 2002 in relation to Child Protection
Appeal:
The defendant appealed against the decision of the Lower Court and High Court. The reason for such appeal is as follows:
1. The High Court has made an error by referring to the wrong law. The law on Child Protection cannot be applied here as the victim is actually married. This shows that the victim is actually being used by someone else to act against the defendant. The Supreme Court said that this argument could not stand as the marriage of the victim was not valid by law and the same was conducted in a secretive manner. Further, the family certificate of the victim that was brought as evidence of her age is not admissible in court as the same has not been verified by an expert and therefore there is no way to determine the genuineness of the certificate.
2. However, the Supreme Court agreed to the fact that the law used by the High Court was outdated and the Court should have sentenced the defendant under Law no 23 of 2002 in relation to Child Protection.
Based on the above, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court and sentenced the defendant to 3 years imprisonment and a fine payment of Rp. 500,000 (approx $50).
Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung)
