MalaysianLawforCLPDummies(/)

Home(/index.html)

LawofEvidence(/lawofevidence.html)

CivilProcedure(/civilprocedure.html)

CriminalProcedure(/criminalprocedure.html)

GeneralPaper(/generalpaper.html)

ProfessionalPaper(/professionalpaper.html)

BurdenandStandardofProof
s.101EvidenceAct1950

Whoeverdesiresanycourttogivejudgementastoanylegalrightorliabilitydependentontheexistenceoffactswhichheasserts
mustprovethatthosefactsexist.

Theburdenofproofthusliesontheprosecutioninacriminalcasewhereastheplaintiffwouldassumetheburdenofproofinacivilcase.

S.102EvidenceAct1950

Theburdenofproofinasuitorproceedingliesonthatpersonwhowouldfailifnoevidenceatallweregivenoneitherside.

MGISecuritiesvTeongTeck
Leng

s.101ands.102oftheEvidenceAct1950requireswhoeverdesiresanycourttogivejudgementastoanylegalrightorliability
dependentontheexistenceoffact,whichheasserts,mustprovethosefactsdoexist.

KamPauSiong&Anorv
WilayahFabricationSdnBhd&
Ors

ThelawontheburdenofproofisgovernedbytheprovisionsfounfinChapterVIIandPartIIIoftheEvidenceAct.Inaccordance
withs.101oftheEvidenceAct,thelegalburdenofestablishingthatcircumstanceshadarisenwhichentitlethe3rdrespondentto

LegalBurdenandEvidentialBurden
ThereisnoreferencemadetosuchtermsintheEvidenceAct.However,themeaningofthewordsproved,disprovedandnotprovedaredefinedins.3ofthe
EvidenceAct.Unders.3oftheEvidenceAct1950:
Proved

Afactissaidtobeprovedwhen,afterconsideringthemattersbeforeit,thecourteitherbelievesittoexistorconsidersitsexistence
soprobablethataprudentmanought,underthecircumstancesoftheparticularcase,toactuponthesuppositionthatitexists.
Afactissaidtobedisprovedwhen,afterconsideringthemattersbeforeit,thecourteitherbelievesthatitdoesnotexistor
considersitsnonexistencesoprobablethataprudentmanought,underthecircumstancesoftheparticularcase,toactuponthe
suppositionthatitdoesnotexist.

Disproved

Afactissaidtobenotprovedwhenitisneitherprovednordisproved.
Notproved
JayasenavR

AsperLordDevlinsdicta:
itisconfusingtocallit[theevidentialburden]aburdenofproof.Furtheritismisleadingtocallitaburdenofproof,whether
describedaslegaorevidentialorbyanyotheradjective,whenitcanbedischargedbytheproductionofevidencethatfallsshortof
proof.

ItisthereforeacceptedthatthephrasesburdentoproveandburdenofproofreferredtointheEvidenceActmustnecessarilyrefertothelegalburdenofproof.

CriminalCases
Prosecution

Accused

Theprosecutionhastheburdentoprovethecaseandthisburdenlieswithhim
throughoutinrespectofthefactsinissue.

Theaccusedhastoweakentheeffectoftheprosecutionscaseeitherbycross
examinationorbyadducingevidencehimselfandthroughwitnesses,ifany.

BurdenofProofontheProsecution
Thestandardofproofreferstothequantumofproofwhichdependsonthenatureofthecasedealtwith:
CriminalCase

CivilCase

BeyondReasonableDoubt

BalanceofProbabilities

ThereisnoreferencetothestandardofproofintheEvidenceAct.However,anattempttoexplainthequantumismadeins.3oftheEvidenceActwherereferenceis
madetoaprudentmanandthestandardexpectedofthatprudentman.

s.3EvidenceAct1950

Proved:Afactissaidtobeprovedwhen,afterconsideringthemattersbeforeit,thecourteitherbelievesittoexistorconsidersits
existencesoprobablethataprudentmanought,underthecircumstancesoftheparticularcase,toactuponthesuppositionthatit
exists.

Themeaningofprudentmanisdiscussedinthefollowingcase:
LiewKalingvPP

thestandardswhichtheprudentmanwillapplytoanyquestionwhichconfrontshimwillvaryaccordingtotheimportanceofthe
questionitself.

Thismeansthatthestandardoftheprudentmanwhichappliesinacriminalcaseifhigherthanthatinacivilcase.Hence,thestandardsofbeyondreasonabledoubt
andbalanceofprobabilitiesisjustified.ThesestandardsremaincommonlawprinciplesandarenotfoundedundertheEvidenceAct.However:
PPvYuvaraj

ItcouldnotbesupposedthattheEvidenceOrdinanceintendedbyaprovisioncontainedinwhatpurportedtobeameredefinitionto
abolishthehistoricdistinctionfundamentaltotheadministrationofjusticeundercommonlaw,betweentheburdenwhichliesonthe
prosecutionincriminalproceedingstoprovetheirfactswhichconstituteanoffencebeyondareasonabledoubtandtheburden
whichliesuponthepartyinacivilsuittoprovethefactswhichconstitutehiscauseofactionordefenceonabalanceofprobabilities.

MillervMinisterofPensions

Thetermbeyondareasonabledoubtshouldnotbeconfusedwithbeyondashadowofdoubt.Althoughitisahighdegreeof
probability,itneednotreachcertainty.Thereisnoabsolutestandardofproofinacriminaltrialandthequestionwhetherthecharge
madeagainsttheaccusedhavebeenprovedbeyondallreasonabledoubtmustdependuponthefactsandcircumstancesofthe
caseandthequalityoftheevidenceadducedinthecaseandthematerialsplacesonrecord.

Itistheprosecutionsdutytoprovethecasebeyondreasonabledoubtandtheaccusedhastomerelycastareasonabledoubt.

PPvSaimin

Areasonabledoubtisadoubtwhichmakesonehesitateastothecorrectnessoftheconclusionthatonereachesitisthedoubt
thatsettlesinonesjudgmentandfindsarestingplacethere.Orassometimessaid,itmustbeadoubtsosolemnandsubstantialas
toproduceinthemindsofthejurorssomeuncertaintyastotheverdicttobegiven.Areasonabledoubtmustbeadoubtarisingfrom
theevidenceorwantofevidenceandcannotbeanimaginarydoubtorconjectureunrelatedtoevidence.

ItwaslaterdecidedinthecaseofMatvPPthatajudgeshouldbemindfulofthefollowingbeforecomingtoadecision:

Acceptorbelievetheaccused'sexplanation
Satisfiedbeyondareasonabledoubt
astotheaccusedsguilt

AcceptandBelieve

DonotAcceptandBelieve
Dependingonwhether
Theexplanationdoesnotraiseinmind
areasonabledoubtastohisguilt

Convict

Acquit

Convict

Theexplanationraisesinminda
reasonabledoubtastohisguilt
Acquit

BurdenofProofontheAccused[anevidentialburden]
Theaccusedwillhavetocastareasonabledoubtontheprosecutionscasetosecureanacquittal.
PPvSaimin

Areasonabledoubtisadoubtwhichmakesonehesitateastothecorrectnessoftheconclusionthatonereachesitisthedoubt
thatsettlesinonesjudgmentandfindsarestingplacethere.Orassometimessaid,itmustbeadoubtsosolemnandsubstantialas
toproduceinthemindsofthejurorssomeuncertaintyastotheverdicttobegiven.Areasonabledoubtmustbeadoubtarisingfrom
theevidenceorwantofevidenceandcannotbeanimaginarydoubtorconjectureunrelatedtoevidence.

s.103EvidenceAct

Theburdenofproofastoanyparticularfactliesonthatpersonwhowishesthecourttobelieveinitsexistence,unlessitisprovided
byanylawthattheproofofthatfactshalllieonanyparticularperson.
Illustrations
(a)AprosecutesBfortheftandwishesthecourttobelievethatBadmittedthethefttoC.Amustprovetheadmission.
(b)Bwishesthecourttobelievethatatthetimeinquestionhewaselsewhere.Hemustproveit.

Whencomparings.103oftheEvidenceActwiths.101oftheEvidenceAct,onecancometoaconclusionthat:

s.101EvidenceAct

Appliestobothcivilandcriminalproceedingstheprosecutionortheplaintiff.

s.103EvidenceAct

Appliestobothcivilandcriminalproceedingsbyanyperson.

Referringtos.103,illustration(b),Bwishesthecourttobelievethatatthetimeinquestionhewaselsewhere.Hemustproveit.Thequestionariseastowhetherthe
wordproveimposesalegalburdenofproof.

JayasenavR

ThewordproveintheEvidenceActmustnecessarilyrefertothelegalburden

DatoMokhtarHashimvPP

Legalburdenshouldbeimposedontheaccusedperson.However,inthiscase,theFederalCourtreferredtos.402AoftheCriminal
ProcedureCodewhichstatesforthepurposeofestablishinghisalibi.

However,theapproachinDatoMokhtarHashimvPPwaslaternotfollowedbytheSupremeCourtinthecaseofYauHengFengvPP.
YauHengFengvPP

Thejudgehasmisdirectedhimselfinthepreviouscaseinallcriminaltrials,theaccusedisdeemedinnocentuntilprovenguiltyby
theprosecution.Thereisnoburdenplacedontheaccusedtoprovehisinnocencedefencessuchasalibiplacedmerelyan
evidentialburdenofintroducingsomeevidenceenoughtocreatereasonabledoubtinthemindsofthejury.

Uponcomingtotheconclusionabove,itshouldbenotedthattheSupremeCourtdidnotmakeanyreferencetos.103oftheEvidenceAct1950.Instead,ithasapplied
commonlawcasessuchasRvJohnsonandRvStebbing.

IllianvPP

Theevidentialburdenwasimposedontheaccused.

ArumugamMothiyahvPP

Theappellantbroughttocourtadefenceofalibiatawedding.Thiswasfurthersupportedby4otherdefencewitnesses.
TheSessionsCourtrejectedthealibibecausetheaccusedcouldnotnamethebrideandthebridegroom.
TheHighCourthoweveroverturnedthedecisionstatingthatthejudgeintheSessionsCourthadfailedtoconsiderthefactthata
weddinghadinfacttakenplaceonthattimeanddate.[followingthejudgementinIllianvPP]

Articlesdiscussingwhetheritshouldbealegalburdenorevidentialburden:
RafiahSalim

CriticisesthecaseofIllianvPPandsupportsthecaseofDatoMokhtarHashim.[Academicallymorereliedon]

ChinTetYung[priortorafiah
Salim]

Affirmsthatitshouldbeanevidentialburden.Hefurthersuggeststhatthenatureofthealibibetakenintoaccount.[practical
approachbutisisjustifiable?]

BurdenofProofwhileProvingDefences

s.105EvidenceAct1950

Whenapersonisaccusedofanyoffence,theburdenofprovingtheexistenceofcircumstancesbringingthecasewithinanyofthe
generalexceptionsinthePenalCodeorwithinanyspecialexceptionofprovisocontainedinanyotherpartofthesameCode,orin
anylawdefiningtheoffenceuponhim,andthecourtshallpresumetheabsenceofthosecircumstances.
Note:thewordsaccusedofanyoffencesuggestthatthissectiononlyappliestoPenalCodeOffencesandotherCriminal
OffencesdefinedundertheLaw.

PPvKennethFookMunLee
(No1)

Theburdentoprovehisdefencelayontheaccusednoobligationontheprosecutiontoadduceevidencetoshow

IkauanakMailvPP

Theaccusedhasaburdentoprovehisdefenceofprovocationonabalanceofprobabilities.

ShiftingtheBurdenofProoftothefromtheProsecutiontotheDefendant
s.106EvidenceAct1950

Whenanyfactisespeciallywithintheknowledgeofanyperson,theburdenofprovingthatfactisuponhim.

Therational:PPvHooCheeKeong

PPvHooCheeKeong

Here,theaccusedhadused3forgedcreditcards.Itisthenuptotheaccusedtoprovethathegenuinelydidnotknowthatthecredit
cardswereforged.
isanexceptiontos.101oftheEvidenceAct1950designedtomeetcertainexceptionalcasesinwhichitwouldbeimpossible,
oratanyratedisproportionatelydifficultfortheprosecutiontoestablishfactswhichareespeciallywithintheknowledgeofthe
accusedandwhichhecouldprovewithoutdifficultyorinconvenience.

Itshouldbenotedthatthewordespeciallyusedins.106oftheEvidenceAct1950isdiscussedinthesubsequentcases:

PPvLimKwaiThean

especiallydoesnotsayexclusivelyorsolelywithintheknowledgeoftheaccusedtheeffectofthewordespeciallyisthatif
itisaneasymatterfortheperson,theproofofwhichbytheprosecutionwouldpresenttheprosecutionwithinordinatedifficulties,
thenordinarycommonsensedemandsthatthebalanceofconvenienceshouldbeinfavouroftheprosecution.

LeeChinHockvPP

Theaccusedwaschargedunders.25oftheInternalSecurityAct(ISA).Thewordswithoutlawfulexcuseplacedtheonusonthe
accusedasitwouldbewithinthepersonsknowledge.

Theburdenofproofshiftsfromtheprosecutiontotheaccusedtoproofthatitwasnothisfault.However,s.106shouldnotbeusedarbitrarilytoshifttheburdenofproof
totheaccused.

MaryNgvR

ThePrivyCouncilheldthatitwasfortheprosecutiontoprovedishonestyandthatitwasnotfortheaccusedtoshehadnotacted
deceitfully.Refer[AttygallevTheKing]

AttygallevTheKing[Sri
Lankancase]

ViscountHailsham:ItisnotthelawofCeylonthattheburdeniscaseuponanaccusedpersonofprovingthatnocrimehasbeen
committed

s.106shouldnotbeusedtoshifttheburdenofproof.Itcanonlybeusedwhenthefactistotheknowledgeoftheaccused.

ReTanKhengCheng

s.106isimposedontheaccusedonlywheretheprosecutionhasfirstmadeoutacasewhich,ifunrebutted,wouldentitlethecourtto
convict.Ifattheendoftheprosecutionscasethereisnoevidenceuponwhichacourtcanfindthatacasewhichifunrebuttedwill
entitleittoconvict,thecourtshouldnotevencalluponthedefense.

CivilCases
Plaintiff

Respondent

Theplaintiffhasthelegalburdentoprovethecaseonabalanceofprobabilities.

Thedefendantassumestheevidentialburdentoraisesufficientevidence.

Theburdenofproofliesonthatpersonwhowouldfailifnoevidenceatallweregivenoneitherside.

MillervMinisterofPensions

LordDenning:TheBalanceofProbabilitiesisaprobabilitywhichisnotsohighasrequiredinacriminalcasemoreprobable
thannotbutiftheprobabilitiesareequal,itisnotdischarged.

ProofofParticularFacts
s.103EvidenceAct1950

Theburdenofproofastoanyparticularfactliesonthatpersonwhowishesthecourttobelieveinitsexistenceunlessitisprovided
byanylawthattheproofofthatfactshalllieonanyparticularperson.

Plaintiffsuesdefendantfornegligence

Burdenofproofisontheplaintiff

Defendantraisescontributorynegligence

Burdenofproofisonthedefendant

Asweknow,thestandardofproofforcivilcasesisbasedontheBalanceofProbabilities.However,itshouldbenotedthatshouldtherebeanycriminalelementinthe
civilcase,shouldwethenapplythestandardofBeyondReasonableDoubt?

EasternEnterprisevOng
ChooKim

Thestandardimposedontheplaintiffwouldstillbeatabalanceofprobabilities.However,thisstandardwillbeofahigherdegreeof
probabilitythanisrequiredinanordinarycaseofcivilnegligencethoughnottheveryhighstandardofcriminallaw.

BlythvBlyth

Adultery,crueltyordesertion

TunDatuMustaphabinDatu
HarunvTunDatukHajiMohd
AdnanRobert

Conspiracy

AdornaPropertiesv
BoonsomBoonyanit

Forgery

Theabovecasesstatesthatthestandardofproofmaintainedisthecivilstandardofproof,thoughthedegreeofthestandardmayvaryaccordingtotheseriousnessof
theallegation.However,itshouldbenotedthatindealingwithfraud,thepositionastowhethertoapplythecivilstandardorcriminalstandardisnotconsistent.

DifferencebetweenFraudandForgery:
s.340(2)(a)ands.340(2)
(b)NationalLandCode
1965

partyofprivyimpliesthatitneedstobeproventhattherewasanactualpartyorprivytothecontract.

Casesdiscussingfraudhadbeeninconsistent.Thiswillbediscussedbyseparatingitinto3sections:

Pre1997

1997

Post1997

Pre1997
BalanceofProbabilities

BeyondReasonableDoubt
SaminathanvPappa
ChuChoonMoivNganSiewTin

LeeYouSinvChongNgoKhoon
DatukJaginderSinghvTaraRajaratnam

LeeYouSinvChongNgo
Khoon

Itwassuggestedthatahigherdegreeofthebalanceofprobabilitiesshouldbeimposed,dependingonhowserioustheallegation
is.ReferencewasmadetothecommonlawcaseofBatervBater:

BatervBater

LordDenning:thecasemaybeprovedbyapreponderanceofprobability,buttheremaybedegrees
ofprobabilitywithinthatstandarddependonthesubjectmatter.Acivilcourt,whenconsideringa

chargeoffraud,willnaturallyrequireahigherdegreeofprobabilitythanthatwhichitwouldrequireif
consideringwhethernegligencewereestablished.Itdoesnotadoptsohighadegreeasacriminal
court,evenwhenitisconsideringachargeofacriminalnature,butstillitdoesrequireadegreeof
probabilitywhichiscommensuratewiththeoccasion

1997
AngHiokSengvYimYutKiu

Standardofprovingfraudwoulddependonthenatureofthefraud,whetheritwasacriminalfraudoracivilfraud.

OngBanChaivSeahSiang

FollowedAngHiokSengvYimYutKiu

Mong

However,thequestionnowarisesastothedistinctionbetweencriminalfraudandcivilfraud.

Post1997
EricChanThiamSoonv
SarawakSecuritiesSdnBhd

ChinJ:thedistinctionofcivilfraudandcriminalfraudisanattemptatdistinguishingtheundistinguishablesincefraudbyits
incorporationoftheoffencesunderthePenalCodecriminalfraud.

YongTimvHooKokCheong
FederalCourtcase:thestandardofproofforfraudisbeyondreasonabledoubt
LeeWayFayvLeeSengEin
CourtofAppealcase:fraudshouldbeprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt

ProofofParticularFacts
s.106EvidenceAct1950

Whenanyactisespeciallywithintheknowledgeofanyperson,theburdenofprovingthatfactisuponhim.

SundramvArujunan

TheSupremeCourtheldthatifthedefendantssoughttoblameathirdparty,theyshouldpleadspecificallyasprovidedunders.106
oftheEvidenceActandnotmerelydenynegligence.

Onedoctrinerelatingtos.106oftheEvidenceActisthedoctrineofResIpsaLoquitur,whichisthatthefactsspeakforitself.Thereisnoneedtoprovecertainelements
ofanoffencebuttoletthefactsspeakforitself.
IfthedoctrineofResIpsaLoquitorissuccessfullypleaded,thedefendantnowhasthelegalburdentorebutthepresumptionoftheprinciple.

MAClydevWongAhMei

Theruleisfortheplaintifftoprovenegligenceandnotforthedefendanttodisproveitmaycausehardshiptotheplaintiff,ifitis
impossibleforhimtoshowwhatwhatpreciseactsoromissionledtohisdamage,andthisismostobviouslysowherethecauseofthe
damageisperculiarlywithinthemeansofknowedgeofthedefendantwhocausedit.

DavidChelliahvMonorail
MalaysiaTeknologiSdn
Bhd

Withreferencetotheabovecase.

Thus,applyingthedoctrineofResIpsaLoquitor,theburdenofproofisshiftedtothedefendant.Thus,therationalofapplyingthisdoctrineisthatthedefendantwould
haveknownhowtheaccidentoccurred,sincehehadcontrolofthemanagementofthesituation.S.106isapplicableinsuchsituationsasthemostimportantelementis
specialknowledgeandthepersonwiththespecialknowledgeofafactwillhavethelegalburdentoprovesuchfact.

FREE WEBSITE (HTTP://WWW.WEEBLY.COM/?UTM_SOURCE=INTERNAL&UTM_MEDIUM=FOOTER&UTM_CAMPAIGN=3)

POWERED BY (HTTP:
UTM_S