JUST ENJOY THE LYRIC

SINGER: BLUE

SONG: ALL RISE

Yo, yo

Stargate

Yo, yo

Your honour please

Gotta believe what I say

(Say)

What I will tell

(Tell)

Happened just the other day

(Day)

I must confess

(Confess)

'Cause had about

Enough (Enough)

I need your help (help)

Got to make this

Here thing stop (Stop)

BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF : SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF FROM THE PROSECUTION TO THE DEFENDANT

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE FROM THE PROSECUTION TO THE            DEFENDANT

s. 106 Evidence Act 1950

When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The rational:-

PP v Hoo Chee Keong

Here, the accused had used 3 forged credit cards. It is then up to the accused to prove that he genuinely did not know that the credit cards were forged.

… is an exception to s. 101 of the Evidence Act 1950… designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are ‘especially’ within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.

It should be noted that the word “especially” used in s.106 of the Evidence Act 1950 is discussed in the subsequent cases:-

BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF : CRIMINAL CASES & PROVING DEFENCES

BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF

s. 101 Evidence Act 1950

Whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.

The burden of proof thus lies on the prosecution in a criminal case whereas the plaintiff would assume the burden of proof in a civil case.

S. 102 Evidence Act 1950

PENGISYTIHARAN KEMATIAN

PENGISYTIHARAN KEMATIAN merupakan pengecualian kepada peraturan dengar cakap. Ianya merupakan kenyataan dari orang-orang yang tidak boleh dipanggil sebagai saksi, tetapi masih relevan dan boleh diterima. Peruntukannya terdapat di bawah seksen 32;

i. Dari orang yang telah mati.

ii. Dari orang yang tidak boleh dijumpai.

iii. Dari orang yang menjadi tidak berupaya memberi keterangan.

iv. Dari orang kehadirannya tidak boleh dibuat tanpa kelengahan atau belanja dari biasa.

Evidence Comics :)

United States v. Knox

Description:
Evidence of prior sexual behavior is not admissible to show mistake regarding consent if there is no real possibility that there was such a mistake. Relevant.

Controversial 114A

What is Section 114A?

Section 114A is the second of two amendments made to Malaysia’s Evidence Act 1950.

Law Minister Nazri Aziz tabled the second amendment, formally known as Evidence (Amendment) (No2) Act 2012, in Dewan Rakyat on 18 April. James Dawos Mamit supported the motion, and Section 114A was passed after the second and third reading. On 9 May, Dewan Negara passed the amendment.

The amendment was gazetted on 31 July 2012. This means the law is now operational.

who said evidence is not fun ;)

GIVING EVIDENCE

Witnesses who turn up in court are allowed to give evidence in the language in which they are most familiar with.

WE all know that Bahasa Malaysia is the national language. However, if a person is called to court as a witness, must he give evidence using Bahasa Malaysia or can he choose to give evidence in any other language?

This issue bothers many people who are called up as witnesses to give evidence in a court of law. Sometimes the fear of having to use an unfamiliar language makes the witness reluctant to testify.

However, it ought to be noted that what the national language of the country is, and the issue of giving evidence in court, are two entirely different matters. So, too, is the issue of the conduct of proceedings in court. Such proceedings do not consist of giving evidence alone. Giving evidence is only part of the proceedings. In civil cases, it starts with cause papers such as a summons or writ of summons being filed.

what EVIDENCE is all about ;)

Most legal disputes which get to court involve a dispute about the facts. Some involve a dispute about both law and the facts; a fairly small minority are about the law and nothing else. The facts that are disputed are determined by the substantive law (Contract, Tort, Crime, Company Law, Insolvency Law  etc) and the reactions of the parties to allegations. For instance, on a charge of murder the prosecution must prove that the victim was killed by the defendant who at the time had that mental state specified by the Criminal Law for murder. The facts in issue will be the actions and the mental state of the defendant. If the defendant raises a defence of provocation, then the facts in issue will include the actions of the victim.   The court reconstructs events from the evidence presented by the parties to the court. 

In most trials the chief form of evidence is the sworn testimony of witnesses. But it may include documents, physical property, such as a weapon and scientific evidence.   The court makes its findings of fact from the evidence given directly to the court and the inferences which can be drawn from such evidence.   The rules of evidence restrict the evidence which may be presented  to the court and determine how that evidence is handled.

FUN TRIVIA 2 on evidence

1ST  STORY

1.      Ms. X, a popular actress has just been called a " mean money-grabbing, miserly b***h" by Mr.Y, a press reporter, in his article on movie stars. Like any other person with a reputation to protect, she sues the newspaper for severe damages. Mr. Y and the newspaper take the defence that they are only publishing the truth. So on whom does the burden of proof lie to show that Mr.Y has or has not caused the defamation?

-          Ms.X. According to the law of evidence, he or she who claims a right, must prove that such a right exists and that damage has been caused as a result of the violation of such a right. So, Ms.X has to show that Mr.Y's statement was defamatory, in that, the burden lies on her to show that Mr.Y's statement caused right thinking members of society to have a lower impression of her.

FUN TRIVIA 1 on evidence

1.      Oh no! Poor Mr.A was murdered by Mr.B. But hang on. Ms.C says she saw B kill A. Mr.D says he heard Mr.A screaming for his life and begging Mr.B not to kill him, and Mrs.E says, Ms.C came and told her that she saw Mr.A being killed by B. Now tell me, whose evidence is considered as relevant evidence in a trial?

-          All of these testimonies (Ms. C, Mr. D, Mrs. E). Of course, the testimonies of all the people are relevant as they speak of facts which relate to the murder of Mr.A.

2.      Apart from deciding relevancy of the evidence, we have to decide, which of these people's testimonies is actually admissible in a Court of law. As prosecutor, you will now have to decide which ones will you actually use in your case. Ms. C: I saw Mr. B killing Mr. A when I was passing by Mr.A's house Mr.D: I was on my morning walk when I heard Mr.A shouting and begging Mr.B not to kill Mrs.E: I had just finished breakfast when Ms. C came in all flustered and scared and told me she saw Mr.B killing Mr.A.

-          Ms.C and Mr.D. So what if a piece of evidence is relevant, it need not be admissible. Mrs. E's testimony in this case is inadmissible because it is hearsay, which means that she does not actually know if something or did not, but she only heard it so. Hearsay is inadmissible because there is no way the other side can disprove a fact only based on hearsay. But what about Mr.D? Even he only heard Mr.A screaming for his life. However, there are exceptions to the rule of hearsay, one of which is res gestae, or things said and done in the course of the transaction. Since, Mr.D heard the words while the murder was happening, his testimony is covered under the res gestae exception.

PRIMA FACIE

Prima facie is a Latin expression meaning on its first encounter, first blush, or at first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face" or "at first appearance", from the feminine form of primus ("first") and facies ("face"), both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. The term is used similarly in academic philosophy. Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling.

Legal burden of proof

In most legal proceedings, one party has a burden of proof, which requires it to present prima facie evidence for all of the essential facts in its case. If they cannot, its claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties. A prima facie case might not stand or fall on its own; if an opposing party introduces other evidence or asserts an affirmative defense it can only be reconciled with a full trial. Sometimes the introduction of prima facie evidence is informally called making a case or building a case.

For example, in a trial under criminal law the prosecution has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the crime charged against the defendant. In a murder case, this would include evidence that the victim was in fact dead, that the defendant's act caused the death, and evidence that the defendant acted with malice aforethought. If no party introduces new evidence the case stands or falls just by the prima facie evidence or lack thereof.

Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable: At this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered, only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a full trial.

In some jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the prosecution in a criminal trial must disclose all evidence to the defense. This includes the prima facie evidence.

An aim of the doctrine of prima facie is to prevent litigants from bringing spurious charges which simply waste all other parties' time.

LET HIM HAVE IT

Let Him Have It is a 1991 British film, which was based on the true story of the case against Derek Bentley, who was hanged for murder under controversial circumstances on 28 January 1953.

Derek William Bentley (30 June 1933 – 28 January 1953) was a British teenager hanged for the murder of a police officer, committed in the course of a burglary attempt. The murder of the police officer was committed by a friend and accomplice of Bentley's, Christopher Craig, then aged 16. Bentley was convicted as a party to the murder, by the English law principle of common criminal purpose "joint enterprise". The judge in court sentenced Bentley to death based on an interpretation of the phrase "Let him have it" (Bentley's alleged instruction to Craig), describing Bentley as "mentally aiding the murder of Police Constable Sidney Miles".

Another Hearsay Exceptions Song, to the tune of Miley Cyrus's "Party in the USA"

*lyrics written by Amanda Bakale (xoxoxo!)

**and of course, to the tune of Miley Cyrus's "Party in the USA"

A funny Lego Illustration on the Hearsay Exceptions =)

This is a very interesting video explaining the hearsay exceptions. Anyone saying that law is dull is hereby proven wrong..! Enjoy the video! Lol-ed when the soprano part came in!! XD 

SAKSI DI MAHKAMAH

Saksi adalah satu aspek penting perjalanan proses Mahkamah. Mereka memberi maklumat mengenai satu-satu kes kepada Mahkamah. Mereka memberitahu Mahkamah selepas mengangkat sumpah. Mereka dikatakan memberi “keterangan”. Keterangan bersumpah mereka menjadi bahan bukti dalam kes itu. 

Mereka di”saman” ke Mahkamah Saman demikian kadang-kadang juga digelar “sapina”. Ini adalah contoh “Saman kepada Saksi” dalam kes jenayah. Ini adalah satu contoh sapina dalam kes Sivil. Menghadiri Mahkamah sebagai saksi adalah tanggungjawab di sisi undang-undang. Sapina dan Saman kepada saksi hendaklah disampaikan kediri saksi itu, dan bukan melalui tampal didepan pintu rumahnya atau kepada ahli keluarganya atau diiklankan dalam surat khabar. Saksi yang diserahkan dengan sapina hendaklah mengaku penerimaannya dikeratan dan ini menjadi bukti penyerahan.

Expert Witness Evidence

During a court hearing or trial, witnesses are called to present testimony. Although most witnesses are lay people with relevant knowledge to share with the court, a court expert witness is different. The expert witness is someone who is called by the court or one of the parties involved to provide testimony to assist the court in ruling on an issue that is not obvious or common knowledge to a layperson. A court expert witness is hired and paid by one of the people related to the matter being considered by the court, and therefore must show expertise to the court's satisfaction before being designated as such. These types of witnesses are called in many different types of cases for a variety of reasons. In a divorce, an expert witness is often called to clarify the value of property, or to provide expert witness testimony as to the best option for child custody based on home studies or psychological evaluations. During personal injury cases, expert witnesses are called to testify as to the past, present, or future medical condition or prognosis of an injured person. Expert witnesses can also provide witness testimony as to the likelihood of a sick or injured party being able to obtain and maintain gainful employment, the value of past and future lost wages, or potential cost of future medical bills. In criminal cases, forensic experts are often called to offer the court and jury translation and application of technical and scientific data related to evidence that may not be easily analysed or understood by the layperson.

Relevant Evidence In Court

Relevant evidence is evidence that is admissible in court based on the fact that it directly pertains to proving the case at hand. It is distinct from irrelevant evidence, which is inadmissible in a court of law since it serves no function. The question of what evidence is relevant depends on the case at hand.

Whether a civil or criminal case is being tried, there are generally several elements that go into determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. For example, first degree murder is defined as the willful, malicious, premeditated and deliberate killing of a victim. Thus, in order for a prosecutor to prove that a defendant is guilty of premeditated murder, he must prove that the action was willful or intentional, that the defendant committed the killing to be malicious, that he planned it beforehand, that he committed the murder on purpose and that the victim was actually killed. If the prosecutor cannot prove malice, for example, or premeditation, the murder may be considered second degree murder instead.

The Best Evidence Rule

The best evidence rule can be traced back to 18th-century Great Britain and continues to be part of many legal systems, including the United States'. The original purpose of the rule was to prevent altered evidence, whether intentionally altered or accidentally altered, from being admitted in a court of law as evidence. Although the best evidence rule continues to be a part of the current United States federal Rules of Evidence, the original purpose has become somewhat obsolete and its practical application is complicated in the electronic age.

Question Of Fact In Law

A question of fact is a legal issue or dispute over a material fact in a case. This is a distinct from a question of law, which requires the use of legal principles to resolve. If there is a question of fact, a judge or jury, also known as triers of fact, will be impaneled to resolve the question at hand.

Whether a dispute is a question of fact or of law can be somewhat confusing. Usually, most examples of a question of fact will ask if and how an event or action occurred, whereas a question of law will ask if an event or action was legal. For instance, a question of law might ask if defendant Joe shooting and killing his wife is premeditated murder or a crime of passion. A question of fact, in contrast, would ask if defendant Joe shot and killed his wife.

Documentary Evidence : A Simple Definition

       Documentary evidence is evidence in the form of a recorded document. While many people may think of written documents, recordings in other media are also considered documentary evidence. For example, a photograph or film would be classified as this type of evidence. People must present original copies of documents unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise, in accordance with the best evidence rule. This rule is designed to prevent the introduction of fraudulent or manipulated documents.

            There are a wide range of reasons why people might wish to introduce documentary evidence for the examination of the judge and jury. For example, if there is a dispute about a contract, bringing the physical contract to court would strongly support a case. Likewise, if a prosecutor is claiming that someone robbed a convenience store; recordings from the store's security system could be used to show the accused inside the store.

            When a lawyer wishes to submit documentary evidence, it needs to meet an evidentiary standard. First, it must be shown to be genuine, and the other side can ask to have the evidence examined and authenticated. Sometimes authentication can be relatively easy; a lawyer might ask someone on the stand “did you write this letter,” for instance. In other cases the document may need to be examined by an expert who can determine whether or not it is original and genuine.

Oral Evidence: A simple definition of Examination-in-Chief, Cross-Examination & Re-Examination.

Examination-in-chief

When a witness is called to give evidence, s/he will be questioned first by the advocate representing the party calling them. This is the 'examination-in-chief', the object of which is to elicit from the witness all the facts supporting that party's case that are within the personal knowledge of that witness.

When giving evidence, witnesses may refresh their memory from documents provided certain conditions are met.

'Leading questions' (i.e. questions which invite a witness to give a particular response) should generally not be asked in examination-in-chief. There are a limited number of exceptions to this rule, such as questions on introductory matters or facts that are not in dispute and the court may allow leading questions where it considers it in the interests of justice to do so.

All the evidence on which the prosecution wishes to rely must be called before the close of the prosecution case, as it will only be in exceptional circumstances that the prosecution may be allowed subsequently to call evidence. This should be borne in mind when you attend the trial: if you consider that there may have been an oversight, and that evidence intended to go before the court has not been introduced, you must inform the prosecuting advocate before, and not after, the close of the prosecution case.

Cross-examination

After a witness has given evidence-in-chief, s/he may be cross-examined on behalf of the other parties, including any co-accused. If a witness has not said anything which damages the prosecution case, or with which your witnesses disagree, there may be no need to cross-examine the witness at all.

If there are no questions in cross-examination, the witness’s account is generally taken as unchallenged, and accepted.

Re-examination

After cross-examination, the party that called the witness may re-examine him/her, but must limit questions to clarify matters covered during cross-examination. Leading questions may not be asked. Re-examination will often be tactically disadvantageous and is not conducted routinely.

The court may recall a witness for further examination or cross-examination. In such circumstances, the parties have a right to cross-examine or re-examine.

Exceptionally, a party may be allowed to call evidence after it has closed its case to rebut evidence that was unforeseen.

UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN : KETERANGAN TERBAIK! (Ilustrasi Kes untuk membantu Pemahaman Pembaca)

Keterangan terbaik

            Bermaksud jika ada dua cara untuk membuktikan satu perkara dan satu cara adalah lebih kukuh dari cara yang satu lagi ,maka cara yang lebih kukuh hendaklah dipakai. Keterangan berdasar keadaan tidak boleh dipakai sekiranya terdapat keterangan terus. Keterangan bahawa satu pihak telah membenarkan satu perkara , maka keterangan dari pihak yang membenarkanya hendaklah dipanggil bukan pihak lain sekiranya ada. Oleh kerana itu keterangan yang hendak dikemukakan adalah keterangan terbaik yang tersedia.

            Ciri keterangan terbaik telah berlaku pada sekitar tahun 1699- 1700 (kurun ke 16 dan 17). Dalam kes Ford V Hopkins Hakim Ho It berkata,

“ bukti terbaik sesuatu benda yang boleh diusaha diperlukan”(the best proof that the nature of thing will afford is only required) bermaksud hanya keterangan paling baik dapat diusahakan diperlukan.”

Pemakaian prinsip terkemuka dalam sejarah berlaku dalam kes Omnychund v Barker [1974] 26 E.R 15 (ch) di mana Lord Hardwicke berkata,

“Hakim dan orang yang waras dalam undang-undang telah membuat satu peraturan umum keterangan – keterangan terbaik satu kes akan di terima/dibenarkan”.

Nota : Pada kurun ke 18 peraturan umum menolak keterangan dengar cakap, keterangan secondary dokumen , dan pembuktian dokumen melaui saksi yang tidak layak. Peraturan juga menolak keterangan dengar cakap sekiranya keterangan terus tersedia. Peraturan keterangan sebenar (Real evidence) adalah keterangan fizikal/objek hendaklah dikemukakan dan pendapat pakar mengenai tulisan dalam dokumen hanya boleh diterima sekiranya penulisnya tidak dapat hadir di Mahkamah.

Peraturan masa kini (working rule)

Peraturan masa kini dapat dilihat dalam dua kes berikut :

Chenie v Watson [1797]

“keterangan lisan mengenai alat pengukur ditolak oleh kerana alat pengukur itu sendiri tidak dikemukakan.”

Williams V East India Co [1802] 3 East 192

“tuntutan ganti rugi dibuat kerana kapalnya rosak apabila dimasukkan kargo senang terbakar tanpa memberi notis. Orang yang menerima kargo tidak dapat di panggil kerana telah mati, walau bagaimanapun keterangan berdasarkan keadaan digunakan dan berjaya dikemukakan. Tuntutan telah diketepikan oleh kerana plaintiff gagal memanggil pegawai yang memasukkan kargo tersebut ke dalam kapal.”

            Peraturan ini telah mendapat kepentingan di England seawal tahun 1939 apabila hakim di England berkata

“adalah jelas pada setiap orang, jika keadilan hendaklah dilakukan – langkah berjaga-jaga tertinggi hendaklah diambil untuk melihat hanya keterangan terbaik yang tersedia dikemukakan di mahkamah”.

            Pada kurun 19 , doktrin yang dipakai dalam kes Chenie dan Wiliam tidak lagi dipakai. Peraturan semula dilakukan dalam kes Garton v Hunter [1969] 1 ALL ER 45 apabila Lord Danning berkata

“Peraturan dulu telah lama berlalu . Peraturan itu seperti jika dokumen asal disimpan oleh seseorang, dokumen itu hendaklah hendaklah dikemukakan oleh orang tersebut dan dokumen mestilah yang asal bukannya salinan. Tetapi masa kini kita tidak boleh terbatas (confine) kepada keterangan terbaik. Kita menerima (admit) semua keterangan relevan dan menimbangnya (weight) baik atau buruknya dan bukan aspek kebolehterimaan (admissibility)”

            Dalam kes Kajala v Noble [1982] 75 Cr. Ap. R 149 hakim tidak bersetuju dengan peraturan di atas (Lord Danning). Seorang lelaki telah dituduh memecah keamanan dan keterangan dari salinan pita video telah digunakan untuk mengecam tertuduh. Hanya salinan pita video digunakan sedangkan filem asal yang tersedia tidak dikemukakan. Mahkamah memutuskan salinan pita video demikian tidak boleh diterima.

Dalam kes Wayte [1983] 76 Cr. App. R 110

3 tuduhan dibuat kerana bersubahat melakukan pemalsuan. Dokumen fotostat diterima sebagai keterangan dengan alasan dokumen asal telah hilang. Diputuskan dokumen fotostat tidak boleh diterima sekiranya perjelasan memuaskan tidak dapat diberikan mengapa dokumen asal tidak dapat dikemukakan. Keputusan ini menolak kes Garton.

Dari kes-kes di atas menunjukan peraturan terbaik mula tergugat di England.

Sejauh Mana Pemakaian Peraturan Keterangan Terbaik Di Malaysia.

            Bermula seawal tahun 1936. Dalam kes How Chien V PP [1936] 1 JLR 114. Tertuduh diketepikan sabitan kerana memiliki 40 paket rokok yang di seludup. Keputusan dibuat kerana pendakwa gagal mengemukakan keterangan sebenar (real evidence) di Mahkamah. Sekiranya tidak praktikal pendakwa hendaklah mengemukakan sebahagian darinya, gambar atau keterangan lain yang membekalkan mahkamah ianya telah diperolehi secara wajar. Untuk menyokong keputusannya hakim telah merujuk kes di England The Princess Julia [1936] 155 1 Times Rpt.263 yang berbunyi,

            “Adalah jelas pada semua orang, jika keadilan hendak dilakukan, langkah berjaga-jaga tertinggi hendak diambil untuk melihat hanya keterangan terbaik yang tersedia dikemukakan di mahkamah”

Dalam kes Chai Ah Son v R [1954] MLJ 217

adalah tugas pendakwa untuk mengemukakan keterangan terbaik. Dalam kes ini beberapa saksi dan dokumen pengakuan tertuduh yang terlibat dalam kes memiliki arak yang diseludup tidak dikemukan oleh pendakwa. Hakim berkata seperti berikut,

“Samada tertuduh membuat pengakuan salah atau tidak, ianya masih tugas pendakwa untuk memberi semua keterangan material kepada mahkamah dengan syarat pendakwa tidak dipaksa untuk memanggil saksi memberi keterangan yang dipercayai tidak benar atau menjadi tidak memihak. Jika saksi ini tidak dipanggil ianya hendaklah tawarkan untuk pemereksaan balas kecuali pendakwa ada alasan yang baik untuk tidak berbuat demikian”

Chow Siew Who v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 228 FC

            Mahkamah persukutuan mengenepikan sabitan tertuduh atas kes bunuh kerana kegagalan pendakwa mengemukan keterangan terbaik iaitu kenyataan simati yang dirakam dan kenyataan pengistiharan kematian (dying declarations ) yang dibuat oleh simati kepada pegawai penyiasat.

Fakta kes :

            Pada 7/5/66 jam 8.30 malam simati meninggalkan tempat kerjanya bersama dengan 3 rakan yang lain dan tiba-tiba telah ditikam oleh seorang lelaki berbaju merah yang terus meninggalkan tempat kejadian. Jeritan mangsa telah menarik perhatian majikannya Chong dan Phang. Chong telah melihat lelaki berbaju merah melarikan diri. Walau baimanapun tidak seorang pun dari mereka dapat mengecam indentiti lelaki berbaju merah. Simati juga tidak memberi sebarang indentiti penyerang apabila ditanya oleh Chong.

            Mangsa telah dimasukkan ke hospital dan pada keesokan harinye telah memberitahu kepada pakcik dan abangnya bahawa penyerang adalah tertuduh. PakCiknya mendakwa tidak mengenali tertuduh tetapi abangnya mengenali tertuduh. Walau bagaimanpun lapuran mengenai indentiti tertuduh hanya dirakam oleh pegawai penyiasat pada hari kesembilan selepas kejadian dan mangsa meninggal dunia pada hari kesepuluh.

            Semasa pembicaraan kenyataan mangsa yang dirakam oleh pengawai penyiasat tidak dikemukakan sebagai keterangan dan hanya dikemukakan adalah keterangan dari Pak Cik, abangnya, Chong ,Phang dan 3 rakan simati. Tertuduh menafikan ada menyerang simati, dia mengaku ada berjumpa simati jam 8 malam dan selepas itu telah pergi ke hospital untuk rawatan sakit perut. Mahkamah persukutuan memutuskan,

“pengeluaran kenyataan simati adalah keterangan terbaik, tetapi tidak dikemukakan dan tidak ada dalam rekod menunjukkan sebab ianya tidak dikemukakan. Oleh kerana kenyataan ini tidak dikemukakan maka keterangan saksi lain adalah kedua terbaik. Oleh itu keterangan mereka adalah terdedah kepada percanggahan (contradiction ) dengan keterangan simati”

PP V Lim Kuan Hock [1967] 2 MLJ 114

tertuduh dibuang kes diketepikan kerana gagal mengemukakan keterangan terbaik .

Fakta kes.

            Tuduhan telah dibuat kerana melakukan rompak besenjata dengan Kong Chye dan 2 yang lain. Keterangan kawad cam telah diterima oleh hakim mahkamah sesyen yang mengendalikan kes ini bahawa tertuduh yang terlibat semasa rompakan. Walau bagaimanapun semasa pembicaraan tertuduh telah mengemukakan keterangan alibi dan mengemukakan seorang saksi bahawa semasa kejadian beliau sepenoh masa bersama saksi tersebut .President mahkamah seysen telah menerima keterangan tersebut dan membuang kes terhadap tertuduh. Rayuan kemudian dibuat.

Diputuskan tertuduh gagal memberi keterangan terbaik (best evidence) alibi . Keterangan terbaik alibi tidak diuji. Kegagalan memanggil Kong Chye untuk ditimbang kebolehpercayaan keterangan alibi tersebut , tertuduh seharusnya disabitkan dengan kesalahan. Rakan yang melakukan jenayah bersama tertuduh iaitu Kong Chye tidak dipanggil untuk mengesahkan penyataan alibi yang dibuat dan keterangan terbaik tidak diberikan.

Nampaknya dari 3 kes Malaysia di atas , makkamah tidak memberi komen tentang pengaruh prinsip Peraturan Terbaik yang semakin menurun seperti di England. Cuma hakim George Seah membuat satu kenyataan yang mempunyai merit,

“Nampaknya, kecuali dalam kes keterangan dokumen, ada banyak perkara boleh katakan untuk diambil ringan (relax) pada pemakaian peraturan keterangan terbaik.”

            Peraturan keterangan terbaik masih terpakai pada keterangan dokumen. Cross on Evidence berkata,

“Peraturan yang masih tinggal adalah dokumen asal perlu dikemukakan untuk membukti kandungannya dan kegagalannya mestilah dijelaskan. Seksen 64 dan 91 adalah di dasarkan pada Peraturan Terbaik Keterangan dan pada keterangan dokumen ianya mestilah digunakan dengan ketat (lihat seksen 61- 63 ).

What is admissible evidence?

Admissible evidence is evidence which can be brought forward in a court of law to support or undermine a legal case. In order to be considered admissible, evidence must meet certain standards, with the standards being especially high in criminal cases. Disputes over the admissibility of evidence often play a role in major trials, with lawyers from both sides attempting to suppress evidence which does not favor their case, with the goal of weakening the position of the other side.

Evidence can take a number of forms. In all cases, evidence is considered admissible when it has a bearing on the case, and it can be used to support or disprove facts which are related to the case. For example, in a murder trial, the identity of the murder weapon is relevant and important to the case, but the suspect's history of running out on lease agreements may not be deemed admissible because it is not relevant to the murder.

In the case of evidence presented by a witness, admissible evidence includes evidence from an expert witness discussing the situation and providing information which is accepted and established in the field. For example, a forensic anthropologist could testify about examining a set of human remains, discussing the facts he or she uncovered in the process and presenting his or her credentials to support the facts provided. By contrast, someone who claims to have collected facts using methods which are deemed suspect in the field of forensic anthropology would not be able to testify. Evidence can also be collected from witnesses who saw the crime or were involved in the investigation, such as testimony from a police officer who responded to the scene of a crime, a forensic technician who processed evidence, or a bystander who watched the crime take place.

Physical evidence is deemed admissible when it pertains to the case and a clear chain of custody can be established, with people demonstrating that the evidence is authentic and that it has been protected to ensure that the integrity is retained. Evidence which is mishandled or obtained by illegal means is not admissible evidence, which can be become a big problem in a legal case; there may be a situation in which evidence is very relevant and important, but it cannot be discussed in court due to the fact that it was not handled correctly.

Judges may also consider the issue of “undue prejudice” when evaluating evidence to determine whether or not it is admissible. If the presentation of evidence would create an unreasonable bias, the people presenting the evidence may be obliged to withdraw or adjust it. For instance, in a violent crime, a graphic description or images of the scene might not be permitted due to concerns about undue prejudice.

Concerns about admissible evidence are very important to the people who investigate crimes. They want to make sure that the evidence they handle is carefully documented and secured so that it can be used in court. They are especially careful when they suspect that they may be creating a precedent. When DNA evidence was first used in court, for example, it was accompanied with ample expert testimony, meticulous documentation, and a clear discussion of the techniques used to collect and analyze DNA samples, demonstrating that the evidence was admissible and laying the groundwork for the future use of DNA as admissible evidence in legal cases.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-admissible-evidence.htm

<3 FADHLIN SAKINA <3

Introduction To The Law Of Evidence

WHAT EVIDENCE IS?

Most lawyers and students think of evidence as a collection of rules governing what facts may be proved in court, what materials may be placed before the court to prove those facts, and the form in which those materials should be placed before the court. What they have in mind is the law of evidence, but not evidence itself. One of the curiosities of the common law is the emergence of rules of evidence whose purpose is not to enable a party to bring before the court evidence which might help his case, but to prohibit a party from bringing some kinds of evidence if his opponent objects, or even if the court itself refuses to permit it. Because of the demands made by the realities of practice, it is only natural that familiarity with the rules should be emphasized. What is taught and examined in the field of evidence is the law of evidence. Yet there is a whole field of inquiry which relates to evidence itself, rather than the law of evidence. The field is a fascinating mixture of logic, epistemology, sociology, psychology, and the forensic sciences, and is, therefore,

wide enough to encompass a vast library of its own. Its concern is the use of evidence as material

in the reconstruction of past events.

Legal Burden and Evidential Burden

Legal Burden and Evidential Burden

There is no reference made to such terms in the Evidence Act. However, the meaning of the words ‘proved’, ‘disproved’ and ‘not proved’ are defined in s. 3 of the Evidence Act. Under s. 3 of the Evidence Act 1950:-

Proved Disproved Not proved

A fact is said to be “proved” when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. A fact is said to be “disproved” when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be “not proved” when it is neither proved nor disproved.

Jayasena v R

As per Lord Devlin’s dicta:- “… it is confusing to call it [the evidential burden] a burden of proof. Further it is misleading to call it a burden of proof, whether described as lega or evidential or by any other adjective, when it can be discharged by the production of evidence that falls short of proof.

It is therefore accepted that the phrases “burden to prove” and “burden of proof” referred to in the Evidence Act must necessarily refer to the “legal burden of proof”.