Sunteți pe pagina 1din 16
Fakulti Undang-Undang UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA RANGKA KURSUS KOD : UUUK4083 KURSUS : UNDANG-UNDANG

Fakulti Undang-Undang UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA

RANGKA KURSUS

KOD

:

UUUK4083

KURSUS

:

UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN II

PENSYARAH

:

DR. RAMALINGGAM RAJAMANICKAM (PENYELARAS) 03/89216376 / rama@ukm.edu.my

PROF. MADYA DR. MOHAMAD RIZAL BIN ABD RAHMAN 03-89216368 / noryn@ukm.my

SEMESTER DAN SESI : SEMESTER II / SESI 2018-20179

AGIHAN TOPIK MENGIKUT MINGGU

 

1. FACTS WHICH NEED NOT BE PROVED

WEEK 1

(a)

Judicial notice

(b)

Formal Admissions

(c)

Admission of Fact in Criminal Cases

 

2. FACTS WHICH NEED TO BE PROVED

WEEK 2

(a)

Oral Evidence

(b)

Documentary Evidence

(c)

Real Evidence

 

3. BURDEN OF PROOF

(a)

Legal burden and evidential burden

WEEK 3

4. QUANTUM OF PROOF

(a)

Civil and Criminal Cases

(b)

Circumstantial Evidence

(c)

Fraud

(d)

Matrimony

1

 

5. BURDEN OF PROOF PRESCRIBED BY LAW

WEEK 4

(a)

Criminal Cases

(b)

Defence of alibi

(c)

Facts especially within knowledge

 

6. PRESUMPTIONS

WEEK 5

(a)

Types of presumptions

(b)

Effect of presumptions

(c)

Presumption of fact

(d)

S.114(g) Adverse Inference

 

(e)

S.114A Presumption of Fact in Publication

WEEK 6

(f)

Rebuttable Presumptions of law

(g)

Irrebuttable Presumptions of law

WEEK 7

TEST

 

7. ESTOPPEL

WEEK 8

(a)

Meaning and scope of Estoppel

(b)

Conditions necessary to raise an Estoppel

(c)

Burden of Proof

 

8.

CORROBORATION

(a)

General Principle

(b)

Accomplice Evidence

WEEK 9

The Meaning of the word’ accomplice’

Prosecution witness

Effect of accomplice Evidence

The nature of warning

WEEK 10

(c)

Evidence of Child Witness Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007 (Act 676)

Capacity of child witness

The requirement of corroboration

Sworn and Unsworn Evidence

 

(d)

Sexual Offences

WEEK 11

Nature of the Offence

Adequate warning

2

   

Identification of accused

(e)

Offence under the Sedition Act

(f)

Entries in Books of Account

(g)

Former Statements

WEEK 12

9.

WITNESSES

 

(a)

Competence and Compellability

(b)

Categories of Witnesses

WEEK 13

 

(c)

Privileges

WEEK 14

REVISION

 

3

I.

SINOPSIS KURSUS

Kursus ini merupakan kesinambungan kepada kursus Undang-Undang Keterangan I (UUUK4073). Kursus ini dimulakan dengan membincangkan aspek pembuktian. Perbincangan tentang pembuktian adalah berdasarkan asas bahawa seseorang peguam bukan sahaja perlu menentukan sesuatu fakta yang dikemukakan itu relevan dan seterusnya boleh diterima oleh mahkamah, malah perlu mengambil kira bagaimana dia patut membuktikan fakta-fakta itu, sekiranya perlu. Sesetengah fakta diandaikan wujud atau diakui secara formal oleh sesuatu pihak di mana ia tidak perlu dibuktikan lagi. Peraturan tentang pembuktian dinyatakan dalam Bahagian II Akta Keterangan 1950 yang menghuraikan bahawa fakta-fakta yang perlu dibuktikan boleh dibuktikan sama ada melalui keterangan lisan, keterangan dokumentar ataupun keterangan sebenar dengan melunaskan beban pembuktian mengikut piawai yang telah ditetapkan. Aspek pembuktian turut mengambil kira peruntukan-peruntukan yang berkaitan dengan anggapan, estopel dan keperluan keterangan sokongan. Akhir sekali, kursus ini membincangkan tentang kategori dan perlindungan saksi-saksi berdasarkan peruntukan Akta Keterangan 1950.

11.

OBJEKTIF KURSUS

1. Mendidik pelajar supaya berkebolehan dalam mengenal pasti teori dan amalan undang-undang keterangan sebagai kesinambungan daripada yang dipelajari dalam Semester I.

2. Mendidik pelajar dalam menggunakan teori dan amalan undang-undang keterangan untuk mengenal pasti isu dan menyelesaikan masalah undang-undang sebagai kesinambungan daripada yang dipelajari dalam Semester I.

III.

PENGENDALIAN KURSUS

1. Amaran Kehadiran Kuliah & Tutorial

Menurut Seksyen 8 Akta Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (Pengajian Sarjana Muda) 1990 dan Peraturan-peraturan UKM (Pengajian Sarjana Muda) 1990 kehadiran kuliah dan tutoran adalah wajib. Mana-mana pelajar mempunyai kehadiran kurang dari 70% boleh dihalang dari menghadiri peperiksaan akhir.

2. Penilaian Kursus dan Pengagihan Markah

Pembentangan

20 %

Projek Berkumpulan

20 %

Ujian/Kuiz/Viva

20 %

Peperiksaan Akhir

40 %

1V.

RUJUKAN

1. Rujukan Utama:

Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer. 2014. Janab’s Key to the Law of Evidence. Ed. ke-4. Kuala Lumpur:

Janab (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Jeffrey Pinsler. 2013. Evidence and the Litigation Process. Ed. ke-4, Singapore: lexisNexis

Rafiah Salim & Cheong May Fong. 2013. Evidence in Malaysia and Singapore: Cases, Materials and Commentaries. Ed. ke-3. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis

Habibah Omar, Siva Barathi Marimuthu & Mazlina Mahali. 2015. Law of Evidence in Malaysia. Selangor: Sweet & Maxwell.

4

Augustine Paul. 2010. Evidence, Practice and Procedure. Ed. ke-4. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis

2. Rujukan Tambahan:

Dennis, Ian H. 2013. The Law of Evidence. 5th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell. H. K. Saharay; Madhusudan Saharay. 2008. Law of Evidence. Kolkata : Eastern Law House. Jal Zabdi Mohd Yusoff. 2003. Pengenalan kepada Undang-Undang Keterangan di Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur:

Penerbit Universiti Malaya. Mason, Stephen. 2012. Electronic Evidence. 3rd edition. LexisNexis Butterworths. M C Sarkar (ed). 2010. Sarkar’s Law of Evidence. 17th ed. Nagpur: Wadhwa and Co. Peters, Mariette. 2013. Law of Evidence in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: LexisNexis. Phipson, S.I.; Malek, H.M.; Auburn, Jonathan. 2009. Phipson on Evidence. 17th ed. London : Sweet & Maxwell. Phipson, S.I.; Malek, H.M.; Auburn, Jonathan. 2011. Phipson on Evidence: First Supplement to the Seventeenth Edition. London : Sweet & Maxwell. Phipson, S.I.; Malek, H.M.; Auburn, Jonathan. 2012. Phipson on Evidence: Second Supplement to the Seventeenth Edition. London : Sweet & Maxwell. Ratanlal Ranchhoddas (ed). 2010. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s The Law of Evidence. 2nd ed. Nagpur: Wadhwa and Co. Tapper, Colin. 2010. Cross & Tapper on Evidence. 12th ed. Oxford University Press. Roberts, Paul; Zuckerman, Adrian. 2010. Criminal Evidence. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.

2. Statut

1. Akta Keterangan 1950

2. Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-Kanak 2007

3. Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017

4. Kanun Tatacara Jenayah

5. Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012

6. Akta Sumpah dan Ikrar 1949

5

V.

KANDUNGAN KURSUS

1.

FACTS WHICH NEED NOT BE PROVED

(a) JUDICIAL NOTICE (S.56-58)

Pembangunan Maha Murni Sdn Bhd v Juruurus Ladang Sdn Bhd [986] 2 MLJ 30, (SC) Re KO (an infant) [1990] 1MLJ 494 (HC) Kamaruzaman bin Yahya v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Anor [1997] 5 MLJ 256,263 (HC) PP v Saad bin Mat Takraw [1998] 3 MLJ 784, 800 (HC) Krishnan Rajan a/l N.Krishnan v Bank Negara Malaysia [2003] 1 MLJ 149

Road use and behavior in the country PP v Zulkifli bin Omar [1998] 6 MLJ 65, 77 (HC)

Personal knowledge of a judge cannot be used to take judicial notice Loh Moh & Anor v PP [1954] MLJ 14, 18 (HC)

Article:

Mohd Akram b. Hj. Shair Mohamed." Judicial Notice And The Judge's Personal Knowledge." [2002] 4 CLJ liii.

(b) FORMAL ADMISSIONS IN CIVIL CASES

Three methods of admission Haron v Macaulay [1969] 1 MLJ 169 Mohd Nazari Ab Majit v Tan Keo Hock & Anor [1999] 1 CLJ 601 (HC)

Order 18 Rule 13 Rules Court 2012 Abdul Majid b.Hj.Nazardin v Paan Perumal [2002] 3 MLJ 640

Admission must be clear Carabao Exports Pty Ltd v Online Management Consultants Sdn Bhd & Ors [1988] 3 MLJ 271, 272 (HC)

(c) ADMISSION OF FACT IN CRIMINAL CASES

The effects of s 73AA

2. FACTS WHICH NEED TO BE PROVED

Facts which are not judicially noticed or formally admitted have to be proved by oral, affidavit, documentary or real Evidence or a combination of these modes of proving facts.

(a) ORAL EVIDENCE (S.3, S.59, S.60, S.119, 135)

Oral Evidence is the basic and most important mode of proof namely witnesses testifying as to what they directly

perceived. The whole structure of the trial is built around oral Evidence which is constituted by the process of examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination.

Evidentiary value of oral Evidence Balasingham v PP [1959] MLJ 193 (HC) Tan Cheang Hock v Chan Thean Soo & anor [1987] 2 MLJ 479 Tara Singh v PP [1949] MLJ 88 Stu v The Comptroller of Income Tax [1962] MLJ 220

6

Lee Ing Chin & Ors v Ean Yook Chin & anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97

Tests for determining the credibility of a witness PP v Dato’Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim [1999] 2 MLJ 1 De Silva v PP [1964] MLJ 81 Che Omar bin Mohd Akhir v PP [1999] 2 MLJ 689 Muniandy & Ors v PP [1966] 1 MLJ 257 PP v Mohamed Ali [1962] MLJ Chew Boon Ee v Ramanathan Chettiar [1959] MLJ 235

(b) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Poh Siew Cheng v American International Assurance Co Ltd [2006] 6 MLJ 57 Tempil Perkakas Sdn.Bhd v Foo Sex Hong [1996] 5 MLJ 542 (HC) Gunasegaran a/l Pararajasingam v PP [1997] 3 MLJ 1 (CCA) Mohd Ali Jaafar vPP [1998] 4 MLJ 210 (HC) Muniyandi a/l Periyan & anor v Eric Chew Wai Keat & anor [2003] 3 MLJ 527

Primary Evidence and secondary Evidence Lucas v Williams & Sons [1892] 2 QB 113, 116 (CA) Lee Weng Kin v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam negeri, Malaysia & Ors [1991] 2 MLJ 472 (HC)

Proof of Documentary Evidence A document may be proved by primary or secondary Evidence. Popular Industries Ltd. v Eastern Garment Manufacturing Sdn Bhd [1989] 3 MLJ 360 (HC) Chong Khee Sang v Pang Ah Chee [1984] 1 MLJ 377 (HC) PP v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris [1977] 1 MLJ 180 (HC)

Article:

Duryana Mohamed, Afridah Abas."The Process Of Gathering Evidence In Civil Cases: Its Application In Civil And Shariah Courts." [2011] 3 MLJ cxxii.

The original document must be properly stamped. (S.52 Stamp Ordinance 1949) Chiew Vui Kiet & anor v Chong Fook Tien & Ors [1971] 2 MLJ 158 (FC)

The maker of a document must be called to prove it. (S.32, 73A) Alliedbank (M) Bhd. v Yau Jiok Hua [1998] 6 MLJ 1, 14 (HC)

Documents produced by a computer- S.90A, 90B, 90C EA - exception to the Hearsay Rule Gunanasegaran a/l Pararajasingam v PP [1997] 3 MLJ 1, (CA) PP v The Eng Wah [1999] 8 CLJ 452 Public Prosecutor v Azilah bin Hadri & Anor [2015] 1 MLJ 617

Articles:

Gita Radhakrishna, Myint Zan, Dennis Khong Wye Keen. "Computer Evidence In Malaysia: Where Are We?" [2013] 3 MLJ xxxiii. Duryana Mohamed. "Computer Evidence: Issues And Challenges In The Present And In The Future." [2011] 1 LNS (A) lxvii. Gita Radhakrishna. "Legal Issues In Electronic Evidence." [2009] 4 MLJ lxv.

7

Exclusion of oral by documentary Evidence (S 91- 99 EA) Datuk Tan Leng Teck v Sarjana Sdn Bhd & Ors [1997] 4 MLJ 329 Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v Tinjar Co. [1979] 2 MLJ 229 Ng Kong Yue & anor v R [1962] MLJ 67 Ah Mee v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 220

Public Document And Private Document Husdi v PP [1979] 2 MLJ 304 Khoo Siew Bee v Ketua Polis, KL [1979]2 MLJ 49 Loo Fang Siang v Ketua Polis Daerah, Butterworth [1981] 2 MLJ 272

The Right To Inspect Kulwant v PP [1986] 2 MLJ 10 (HC) Anthony Gomez v Ketua Polis Daerah Kuantan [1977] 2 MLJ 24 Toh Kong Joo v Penguasa perubatan Hospital Sultanah Aminah JB [1990] 2 MLJ 235 Haji Abdul Ghani Ishak vPP [1980] 2 MLJ 196 Huzir bin Hassan v Ketua Polis Daerah JB [1994] 2 MLJ 385

(e) REAL EVIDENCE Real Evidence concerns those forms which the court will consider on the basis of its perception for the purpose of determining the inferences to be drawn. Such Evidence would include material objects such as a knife used in a murder, a packet containing a prohibited drug, tape recordings, the demeanour of a witness and the existence or condition of a material thing.

3. BURDEN OF PROOF

General meaning of ‘burden of proof’- S.3, S.101 & S.102 EA

Malaysia Building Society Bhd v Sentiasa Harum Sdn Bhd & Ors [2003] 5 MLJ 328, Cheng Hang Guan & Ors v Perumahan Farlim (Penang) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1993] 3 MLJ 352 PP v Dato' Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim & Anor [2001] 3 MLJ 193 Poh Siew Cheng v American International Assurance Co Ltd [2006] 6 MLJ 57 PP v Selvarajoo A/L Ramachandran & Ors [2005] 5 MLJ 282 PP v Kesavan A/L Petchayo [Commat] Balakrishnan [2001] 7 MLJ 144 Lim Tai Ming & Sons Credit Sdn Bhd v Lim Tuck Thien [2001] 1 MLJ 57

(a) LEGAL BURDEN AND EVIDENTIAL BURDEN Tenaga Nasional Bhd. V Perwaja Steel Sdn.Bhd [1995] 4 MLJ 673, 676-677 (HC) International Times & Ors. V Leong Ho Yuen [1980] 2 MLJ 86, 87 (FC) Aziz Bin Muhamad Din v PP [1996] 5 MLJ 473, 479-498 (HC) Wong Siew Ping v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 56, 57-58 (HC) Rusli Supardi v PP [2002] 3 MLJ 256

4. QUANTUM OF PROOF

(a) CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372 Mohamed Radhi bin Yaakob v PP [1991] 3 MLJ 169, 171 (SC)

Lim Soh Meng & Anor v Krishnan [1967] 1 MLJ 8

(b) CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Kartar Singh v R [1952] 18 MLJ 85

8

Chan Chwen Kong v PP [1962] MLJ 307 Sunny Ang v PP [1966] 2 MLJ 191 McGreevy v DPP [1973] 1 ALL ER 503 Jayaraman v PP [1982] 2 MLJ 306 Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim v PP [1990] 2 MLJ 149

(c) FRAUD

Eastern & Oriental Hotel Sdn Bhd v Ellarious George Fernandez & Anor [1989] 1 MLJ 35

Lee Kim Luang v Lee Shiah Yee [1988] 1 MLJ 193 Eastern Enterprises v Ong Choo Kim [1969] 1 MLJ 236

(d) MATRIMONY

Ng v Lim [1969] 1 MLJ 139 Koh Teng Lam v Elsie Koh [1976] 2 MLJ 222 Lim Nyuk Lim v Gan Kim Biow [1982] 2 MLJ 68

5. BURDEN OF PROOF PRESCRIBED BY LAW

(a) CRIMINAL CASES S.105

Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462

R v Carr-Briant [1943] 1 KB 607

Jayasena v R [1970] 1 All ER 219 PP v Yuvaraj [1969] 2 MLJ 89 Ng Eng Kooi & Anor v PP [1970] 1 MLJ 267 PP v Ang Boon Foo [1981] 1 MLJ 40 Ikau anak Mail v PP [1973] 2 MLJ 153

(b) PROOF OF PARTICULAR FACT S.103

Dato Mokhtar Hashim & Anor v PP [1983] 2 MLJ 232 (FC)

Yau Heng Fang v PP [1985] 2 MLJ 232 (SC) Illian & anor v PP [1988] 1 MLJ 421 (SC) Ramakrishnan s/o Ramayan v PP [1998] 3 SLR 645 (HC)

(c) FACTS ESPECIALLY WITHIN KNOWLEDGE- S.106

Ho Tong Cheong & Ors v Oversea- Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [1967] 2MLJ 70

PP v Kum Chee Cheong [1992] 2 SLR 126, 132-33 (HC) PP v Hoo Chee Keong [1997] 4 MLJ 451, 459-60 (HC)

6.

PRESUMPTIONS

(a)

TYPES OF PRESUMPTIONS S.4

(i)

Presumptions of fact - S.4(1)

(ii)

Rebuttable presumptions of law S.4(2)

(iii)

Irrebuttable presumptions of law- S.4(3)

General principle

It

is a rule of law whereby upon proof of one fact called the basic fact, another fact called the presumed fact is deemed

to

have been proved.

PP v Ooi Seng Huat [1968] 2 MLJ 168 (HC) PP v Ee Boon Keat [2006] 2 MLJ 633

9

(b) EFFECT OF PRESUMPTIONS

Lt.Kol Yusof bin Abd.Rahman v Kol Annuar bin Md Amin [11997] 1 MLJ 562, 577 (CA)

(c) PRESUMPTION OF FACT S.86, 87, 88, 90, 114

The court may either regard the fact as proved unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.

Presumptions of fact must not be drawn automatically. Mohamed Ali v PP [1962] MLJ 230, 231-132 (HC)

S.114(a)

PP v Hong Ah Huat [1976] MLJ 152

Presumptions regarding Evidence of accomplices (refer ‘corroboration’) S.114(b) to be read with S.133 EA

S.114 (c) (d)(e) (f)(i)

(d) S114 (G) – ‘ADVERSE INFERENCE’

Cheng Hang Guan & Ors v Perumahan Farlim (Penang) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1993] 3 MLJ 352

PP v Kesavan A/L Petchayo [Commat] Balakrishnan [2001] 7 MLJ 144 PP v Ee Boon Keat [2006] 2 MLJ 633 Khoo Chye Hin v PP [1961] MLJ 105, 109 (CA) Samsudin v PP [1962] MLJ 405, 407 (CA) Munusamy v PP [1987] 1 MLJ 492, 494 (SC) Pendakwa Raya v Mansor bin Mohd Rashid [1996] 3 MLJ 560 PP v Guan Sheng Trading Sdn Bhd [1997] 4 MLJ 20 HC Pekan Nenas Industries Sdn.Bhd v Chang Ching Chuen [1998] 1 MLJ 465 (FC) Zulsafari Abd.Ghani v Shahril Idris [2003] 7 MLJ 436 Public Prosecutor v Azilah bin Hadri & Anor [2015] 1 MLJ 617

S114 (h) to be read with S.148 (2) (d) EA See S114 sub.seksyen (i)--(x)

(e) S114A - 'PRESUMPTION OF FACT IN PUBLICATION'

Article:

Mariette Peters. Section 114A

A Presumption of Guilt?” [2012] 6 MLJ ciii.

(f) REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW

S.79-85, 89, S.105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 EA

The court ‘shall presume’ – S.4(2)

General principle The court shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. - Refer cases under S.105

Presumptions as to documents- S.79-90

(g) IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW S.4(3)

S.41, 112, 113 AK - “conclusive proof”

10

S.112 EA The section is only applicable where the legitimacy of a child is involved. Chua Kim Suan v Ang Mek Chong [1988] 3 MLJ 231, 234 (HC) Ainan bin Mahmud v Syed Abu Bakar bin Habib Yusoff & Ors [1939] MLJ Rep 209, 215 (HC) Ng Chian Perng v Ng Ho Peng [1982] 2 MLJ 686 (HC)

S.113 EA

It shall be an irrebuttable presumption of law that a boy under 13 years is incapable of committing rape.

Article:

Ramalinggam Rajamanickam, Seksyen 113 Akta Keterangan 1950: Sejauh Manakah Kerelevanannya dalam Pentadbiran Keadilan di Malaysia? Current Law Journal [2012] 1 QLR 42

7. THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL (S.40-44, 115-117)

The principle of Estoppel is related to the burden of proof in that it prevents a party from proving facts in prescribed situations.

(a) MEANING AND SCOPE OF ESTOPPEL

Industrial & Commercial Realty Co.Led v Merchant Credit Pte Ltd.[1980] 1 MLJ 208 (HC)

UMW Toyota (M) Sdn Bhd vChow Weng Thiem [1996] 5 MLJ 678 Commissioners of Malacca v Sinniah [1974] 1 MLJ 77 Public Textiles Berhad v Lembaga letrik Negara [1976] 2 MLJ 58 Ban Seng v Yap Pek Soo [1967] 2 MLJ 156

(b) CONDITIONS NECESSARY TO RAISE AN ESTOPPEL

V Veerah v General Manager Keterapi Tanah Melayu [1974] 1 MLJ 202

(c ) BURDEN OF PROOF Muthiah v Lee Kor Fan [1996] 1 MLJ 105 (HC)

“He who seeks equity must come with clean hands” Kerajaan Malaysia v Mohd.Mokhtar bin Ali [1995] 4 MLJ 601

8. CORROBORATION

(a) GENERAL PRINCIPLE

Corroboration must be independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with

the crime.

PP v Mohammad Terang Bin Amit [1999] 1 MLJ 154 Dr Shanmuganathan v Periasamy S/O Sithambaram Pillai [1997] 3 MLJ 61 Francis Antonysamy v PP [2005] 3 MLJ 389 Pasupathy A/L Kanagasaby v PP [2005] 1 MLJ 493

R

v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658

R

v Whitehead [1929] 1 KB 99

MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals [1995] 2 MLJ 493

Aziz Bin Muhamad Din v PP [1996] 5 MLJ 473, 479-498 (HC) TN Nathan v PP [1978] 1 MLJ 134 DPP v Kilbourne [1973] 1 All ER 440 Lim Eng Eng v Pendakwa Raya [1998] 3 AMR 2079

11

Attan bin Abdul Gani v PP [1970] 2 MLJ 143 Yap Ee Kong & Anor v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 144

(i)

rule of prudence

(ii)

rule of practice

(iii)

rule of law

Article:

Mohd Akram b. Hj. Shair Mohamed. "The Corroboration Controversy Created By Section 157 Of The Evidence Act 1950." [2013] 6 MLJ cxx.

(b) ACCOMPLICE EVIDENCE (S.114 (b) TO BE READ WITH S.133) An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

The meaning of the word ‘accomplice’ Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] 1 ALL ER 507 Ratten Singh v PP [1971] 1 MLJ 162 PP v Abdul Azizsou & Ors [1978] 2MLJ, 166 (HC) PP v Mohd Jamil bin Yahya & anor [1993] 3 MLJ 702, 711 (HC) Teja Singh & Anor v PP [1950] MLJ 74-76

The accomplice rule applies only to a witness called for the prosecution Daud bin Awang Ngah & Ors v PP [1958] MLJ 168, 169-170 (CA) PP v Yeoh Teck Chye [1981] 2 MLJ 176 (FC) Abdul Khalid bin Abd.Hamid v PP [1995] 1 MLJ 692 (HC)

Effect of accomplice Evidence Daimon bin Banda v PP [1953] MLJ 23,24 (CA) Kong Weng Chong v PP [1994] 1 SLR 34 (CCA) Goh Ah Yew v PP [1949] MLJ 150, 153 (CA) Ng yau Thai v PP [1987] 2 MLJ 214 Khoo Cheng Huat v PP [1949] 1 MLJ 42 (HC) Adzhaar bin Ahmad v PP [1996] 4 MLJ 85 (HC) Hainie Hamid v PP [2002] 2 MLJ 157 Dato' Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim v PP And Another Appeal [2004] 3 MLJ 405

The nature of warning Shazali bin Salleh v PP [1993] 2 AMR 2039

Other Relevant Cases

Jegathesan v PP [1980] 1 MLJ 165. R v Lim Yam Hong [1921] 14 SSLR 152 Bhuboni Sahu v The King (1949) 76 1A 147 PP v Thavananthan [1994] 2 MLJ 436 Pendakwa Raya v Khairul Adli bin Ramli dan lain-lain [2007] 6 MLJ 754 PP v Selvarajoo A/L Ramachandran & Ors [2005] 5 MLJ 282 Pasupathy A/L Kanagasaby v PP [2005] 1 MLJ 493 Sabarudin Bin Non & Ors v PP [2005] 4 MLJ 37 Harcharan Singh & Anor v PP [2005] 1 MLJ 593 PP v Mohd Azam Bin Basiron And Another Trial [2004] 2 MLJ 556 PP v Sarjeet Singh & Anor [1994] 2 MLJ 290

12

Mahmud Jamili Bin Zaudin & Anor v PP [1995] 4 MLJ 243 PP v Lin Chien Pang [1993] 2 MLJ 34 Ramachandran & Anor v PP [1991] 1 MLJ 267 Krishna Jayaram v PP [1989] 3 MLJ 272 Ng Yau Thai v PP [1987] 2 MLJ 214

(c) EVIDENCE OF CHILD WITNESSES (S.133A) Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007 (Act 676)

Capacity of Child witness Sidek bin Ludan v public Prosecutor [1995] 3 MLJ 178 (HC) Muharam bin Anson v Public prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 222 Shanmugam a/Munusamy v PP [1999] 1 MLJ 288 Yusaini Mat Adam v PP [1998] 3 MLJ 582

The Requirement of Corroboration Chao Chong & Ors v PP [1960] MLJ 238 Loo Chuan Huat v PP [1971] 2 MLJ 167 Tham kai Yau & Ors v PP [1977] 1 MLJ 174 Lee Kwang Peng v PP [1997] 3 SLR 278

Sworn and Unsworn Evidence DPP v Hester [1973] AC 296 Yusaini Bin Mat Adam v PP [1999] 3 MLJ 582 Shanmugam A/L Munusamy v PP [1999] 1 MLJ 288 PP v Mohd Noor bin Abdullah [1992] 1 CLJ 702 (HC) Teo Keng Pong v PP [1996] 3 SLR 329 (HC) PP v Mohammad Terang bin Amit [1999] 1 MLJ 154 (HC) Kesavan Senderan v PP [1999] 1 CLJ 343

Article:

Aminuddin Mustaffa & Kamaliah Salleh. “Child Evidence In Criminal Proceedings In Malaysian Courts: A Study On Post Ratification Of The Convention On The Rights Of The Child.”[2010] 6 CLJ(A) i.

(d) SEXUAL OFFENCES

Nature of the offence Din v PP [1964] MLJ 300 (FC) Brabakaran v PP [1966] 1 MLJ 64 PP v Ku Hang Chua [1975] 2 MLJ 99 (HC) Augustine Foong Boo Jang v PP [1990] 1 MLJ 225 PP v Mardai [1950] 1 MLJ 33, Koh Eng Soon v Rex [1950] MLJ 52 PP v Emran bin Nasir [1987] 1 MLJ 166 R v Burgess (1956) 40 Cr App Rep 144

R v Henry, R v Manning (1968) 53 Cr App R 150

The warning must be clear and adequate Chiu Nang Hong v PP [1965] 1 MLJ 40

Identification of accused PP v Mohamed bin Majid [1977] 1 MLJ 12 Mohinder Singh v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 126

13

Article:

Muzaffar

Syah

B

Mallow.

"Evidence

To

Substantiate

The

Allegations

Of

Sexual

Harassment

In

The

Workplace."[2011] 1 MLJ i.

(e) OFFENCE UNDER THE SEDITION ACT

PP v Mark Koding [1983] 1 MLJ 111 Lim Guan Eng v PP [1998] 3 MLJ 14 Lim Guan Eng v PP [2000] 2 MLJ 577 (FC)

(f) ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT

Sim Siok Eng & Anor v Poh Hua Transport and Contractor Sdn Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 72 Jaswant Singh v Lala Sheo Narain Lal [1893-94] 21 IA 6

(g) EVIDENCE AS TO IDENTIFICATION

Jaafar bin Ali v PP 48 [1998] 4 MLJ 406 Rangapula & Anor v PP 49 [1982] 1 MLJ 91 Dato Mokhtar bin Hashim & Anor v PP 50 [1983] 2 MLJ 232 Yau Heng Fang v PP 51 [1985] 2 MLJ 335 Arumugam s/o Muthusamy v PP 52 [1998] 3 MLJ 73

(h) FORMER STATEMENTS

Rex v Koh Soon Poh [1935] 1 MLJ 120 PP v Samsul Kamar bin Mohd Zain [1988] 2 MLJ 252 Wong Thin Yit v Mohamed Ali [1971] 2 MLJ 175 Karthiyayani & Anor v Lee Leong Sin & Anor [1975] 1 MLJ 119 Khoo Kwoon Hain v PP [1995] 2 SLR 767 Mohamed Ali v PP [1971] 2 MLJ 175 PP v Paneerselvan & Ors [1991] 1 MLJ 106 Chiu Nang Hong v PP [1965] 1 MLJ 40 Ah Mee v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 220 Morgan a/l Perumal v Ketua Inspector Hussein bin Abdul Majid & Ors [1996] 3 MLJ 281 YK Fung Securities Sdn Bhd v James Capel (Far East) Ltd [1997] 2 MLJ 621 (CA) Commercial Union Assurance (M) Sdn Bhd v Ng Chek Hung and another appeal [1997] 2 MLJ 465 Thavanathan a/l Balasubramaniam v PP [1997] 2 MLJ 401

9.

WITNESSES

(a)

COMPETENCE AND COMPELLABILITY

Duty of a competent witness (S.132, 114(h) & S.148(2)(d)EA Ghouse bin Haji Kader Mustan v R [1946] MLJ 36 (HC)

Test of competence ( S.118 120) Kee Lik Tian v PP [1948] 1 MLJ 306 (HC) Sidek bin Ludan v PP [1995] 3 MLJ 178 (HC) Chai Kor v PP [1965] 2 MLJ 208 (FC)

14

Oath & Affirmation Act 1949

(b) CATEGORIES OF WITNESSES

(i) Interested witness

Balasingham v PP [1959] MLJ 193 (HC) Rattan Singh v PP [1971] 1 MLJ 162 (HC) Tan Kheng Ann & Ors v PP [1965] 2 MLJ 108

(ii) Chance witness

Low Seng Wah v PP [1962] MLJ 107 (HC)

(iii) Trap witness

Mohamed Mokhtar v PP [1972] 1 MLJ 22 (HC) Adzhaar bin Ahmad & Anor v PP [1996] 4 MLJ 85 (HC)

(iv) Evidence of close relatives

Liow Siow Long v PP [1970] 1 MLJ 40 (HC)

Other Relevant Cases

Dr Shanmuganathan v Periasamy S/O Sithambaram Pillai [1997] 3 MLJ 61 PP v Dato' Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim & Anor [2001] 3 MLJ 193 Shanmugam v PP [1963] 1 MLJ 125 PP v Ee Boon Keat [2006] 2 MLJ 633 Pasupathy A/L Kanagasaby v PP [2005] 1 MLJ 493 Dato' Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim v PP [2004] 1 MLJ 177 Dalip Bhagwan Singh v PP [1998] 1 MLJ 1

(c) PRIVILEGES (S.121 - 132)

A witness who is competent but not compellable to give Evidence because he is excused from adducing Evidence due

to ‘privilege’

Marital communications (S.122) Palldas a/l Arumugam v PP [1988] 1 CLJ 661 Rumping v DPP [1964] AC 18

Public interest privilege (S.123- 124) BA Rao & Ors. v Sapuran Kaur [1978] 2 MLJ 146 (FC) Gurbachan Singh v PP [1966] 2 MLJ 125 (HC) Zainuddin Dato’Seri Paduka Haji Marsal v Pengiran Putera Negara Haji Umar & Anor [1997] 4 MLJ 135 (HC) Re Loh Kah Keng (deceased) [1990] 2 MLJ 126 (HC) – meaning of ‘official confidence’

Protection of the identity of informers (s.125)

R

v Rankine [1986] 2 All ER 566

R

v Johnson [1989] 1 All ER 121

Comparison with Whistleblower Protection Act 2010

Legal professional privilege (S.126 - 129) Dato’ Au Ba Chi & Ors v Koh Keng Kheng & Ors [1989] 3 MLJ 445 (HC) Chua Su Yin & Co v Ng Sung Yee [1991] 2 MLJ 348 PP v Haji Kassim [1971] 2 MLJ 115 (FC) Re the detention of Leonard Teoh Hooi Leong [1998] 1 MLJ 757 (HC)

15

AG of Hongkong v Lorrain Esme Osman & Ors [1993] 2 MLJ 347 (HC)

Articles:

See Eng Teong. "The Law On Legal Professional Privilege In Malaysia: Any Room For Common Law?" [2002] 1 MLJ xcvii. Mohd Akram b. Hj. Shair Mohamed. "The Scope Of Legal Professional Privilege Under Section 127 Of The Evidence Act 1950." [1989] 2 CLJ 67.

Privilege against self-incrimination (S.132) Chean Siong Guat v PP [1969] 2 MLJ 63 (HC) Television Broadcasts Ltd v Mandarin Video Holdings Sdn Bhd [1983] 2 MLJ 346 (HC) A.G of Hong Kong v Zauyah Wan Chik [1995] 2 MLJ 620 (CA)

Waiver (S.126, 128) Dato’ Au Ba Chi & Ors v Koh Keng Kheng & Ors [1989] 3 MLJ 445 See Teow Chuan v Dato Anthony See Teow Guan [1999] 4 MLJ 42 (HC) Peter Chi Man Kwong & anor v Ronald Lee Kum Seng [1985] 1 MLJ 21 (CA)

HAKCIPTA/COPYRIGHT FAKULTI UNDANG-UNDANG UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA

HAKCIPTA TERPELIHARA. TIADA BAHAGIAN DARIPADA TERBITAN INI BOLEH DITERBITKAN SEMULA, DISIMPAN UNTUK PENGELUARAN ATAU DITUKAR KE DALAM SEBARANG BENTUK ATAU DENGAN SEBARANG ALAT JUGA PUN, SAMA ADA DENGAN CARA ELEKTRONIK, GAMBAR SERTA RAKAMAN DAN SEBAGAINYA TANPA KEBENARAN BERTULIS DARIPADA PENULIS TERLEBIH DAHULU.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16