Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
• The HC ruled that the accused was allowed to get a copy of the
cautioned statement to be supplied to the accused but not the
statements of prosecution witnesses as there might be tampering of
witnesses.
During Trial:
• The accused is entitled to get a copy of the statement by a prosecution
witnesses for purposes of impeachment.
• The rights to inspect the FIR is limited to statements recorded from the
accused and NOT from others who are potential witnesses against or for
them – as to which the prosecution is under no duty to supply to the
defence
• Only accused can get his own statement and not others.
Accused Statement under section 112
Khoo Siew Bee v PP
Held: “in regard to a first information report lodged by a complainant against
an accused, and, with respect, I would hold that it should also be followed in
regard to a cautioned statement recorded from an accused person, so that he
has an interest in it, has the right to inspect it and to a certified copy
before the commencement of the trial especially as here the accused have been
brought to court and charged.”
Chemist’s report
Section 399 – pre-condition
where the public prosecutor intends to give any evidence of the report of a
person listed under sub-s (2), he has to deliver a copy thereof to the accused
not less than ten clear days before the commencement of the trial.
Ss (2)(c) – chemists in the employment of any Government in Malaysia or of
the Government of Singapore.
Section 51A(1)(b)
(b) a copy of any document which would be tendered as part of the evidence
for the prosecution;
PP v Raymond Chia Kim Chwee & Anor[1985]
2 MLJ 436 SC
Held: If the stage is prior to the commencement of the trial, regard must
be had to the requirements in ss. 152, 153 and 154 CPC inclusive, that is,
that a charge must contain sufficient particulars of the offence. In
other words, if the charge specifically mention about the documents,
the defence must be given the right of inspection. In other situation,
the Court would have to be more careful and decide on the justice of the
case by applying the rules of relevancy.
Retnarasa Annarasa v PP
Held:
Court ruled that s. 51A CPC should be read together with s. 51 CPC to give a
full effect to the disclosure process
that any refusal to release or disclose must be justified with reasons for such a
refusal.
Followed by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP in High Court.
PP v Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (CoA)
Construed the section strictly.
Except as what is provided for under s. 51A of the Code the Respondent is
not entitled to discover or inspect evidence or material in the possession
of the prosecution before the commencement of the trial.
the Respondent was not entitled to get the order he prayed for in his
Notice of Motion.
The investigation diary of the investigation
officer.
Section 119 CPC
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act 1950, an accused
person shall not be entitled, either before or in the course of any
inquiry or trial, to call for or inspect any such diary: Provided that if the
police officer who has made the investigation refers to the diary for the
purposes of section 159 or 160 of that Act, such entries only as the officer
has referred to shall be shown to the accused, and the Court shall at the
request of the officer cause any other entries to be concealed from view or
obliterated.