Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kulliyyah: Department:
AIKOL Public Law Department
Status Core
Level 4
Credit Hours 3
Contact Hours 3
Pre-requisite None
(if any)
Co-requisite None
(if any)
Teaching Methodology Lectures, Tutorials & Seminars
imparted first. The first few weeks of the course will be devoted on
the basics of evidence such as mode of evidence, relevancy sections
and similar fact evidence.
The next few weeks will cover important topics like admission and
confession, expert opinion and exceptions to the rule of hearsay.
COURSE OUTLINES
the facts in issue are matters to be exactly what matters are left in dispute and
decided in pleadings. In a contract, therefore open to proof or disproof.
the terms, implied or express could be
denied or traversed. Matters that are
not admitted become an issue. Must
prove the facts in issue.
Recommended Reading:
H.M. Zafrullah 1984. Admissibility,
Relevant Evidence and other related Issues:
Other cases:
PP v. Kilbourne [1973] AC 729:
“Evidence is relevant if it is
logically probative or disprobative
of some matter which requires
proof ... “(L)ogical probativeness”
7
Recommended Readings:
1. Yeo. 1981. Illegally Obtained
Evidence. Melbourne University Law
Report. 13. 31.
Hearsay evidence
implied assertion.
3. Chandrasekera alias
Alisandiri [1939] AC 220
4. R v Abdullah 1887 All.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Definition in section 3: Transaction of
thought of something permanent. Anything
that represent an idea by audio, telex,
computer.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Sections relevant: sections 6 –16
(Relevancy section) : Section 45-51
(Opinion evidence)
Circumstantial evidence is inferential
evidence where direct evidence is not
available to be given by witnesses, ordinary
or expert.
12
Real Evidence
The real subject matter itself – ie the
identity of the offensive drug.
Locus in quo.
Visiting the scene of the crime.
Recommended Readings:
1. Ahmad Ibrahim. 1973. Note On
Circumstantial Evidence. Malayan
Law Journal. 1. xlvi.
WEEK Res Gestae – Par in rei gestae (Part 1. Kok Ho Leng v PP [1941] MLJ Rep
4 of the transaction) 119
Section 6: Facts forming part of Charged with gambling. While the
same transaction. authorities raided his premises he took out
the phone. These transaction were relevant
This section refers to those under section 6 and 7.
surrounding and accompanying
13
Under the common law, this doctrine Judges very much mersmerised by Res
will admit evidence not under any gestae doctrine. Under the common law,
head of evidence. However to exclude this principle allows evidence not under
this evidence will cause injustice. any head of admissibility. It must be
This doctrine under the common law legally and logically relevant. To exclude
very restrictive condition and is such evidence will make the evidence
strictly applied. intelligible and unjustifiable. We have
sections 5, 6 – 55 that deal with relevancy.
The evidence may occur at different Section 6 does not explain the concept of
times and place. It is connected by RG.
fact in issue by proximity of time and
place and continuity of purpose and OLD LAW
circumstances. Consist of acts, The action must be contemporaneous and
conduct, statement and statement of spontaneous under the common law.
bystanders. A transaction is a group
of facts to which you give a legal 1. R v Bedingfield (1879) 14 Cox CC
name, crime/ tort. 341
Recommended Readings:
1. Chin. 1987. Relevancy, Res Gestae
and Hearsay : A Malaysian
Perspective.
Malayan Law Journal. cxxix.
20. 435.
Conduct
Can be previous or subsequent conduct.
1. Chandrasekaran & Ors v PP [1971] 1
MLJ 153
relevant under s 7.
Facts show relation of parties in so far
they are necessary for that purpose.
Identification of voice.
Visual id
There is a distinction between
recognition and identification.
Recognition is more reliable than mere
identification.
Dato Mokhtar Hashim v PP [1983] 2
MLJ 232.
19
ID Parade.
ID parade is admissible under s9
Jaafar Ali v PP [198] 4 MLJ 406.
Procedure of ID parade.
Ong Lai Kim v PP [1991] 3 MLJ 111.
There is no written law regarding
procedure. The practice of holding a
proper id parade is summarized in
Mallal’s Criminal Procedure.
Other cases:
Girdari Lall & Ors. v. PP [1946]
MLJ (FMSR) 87 (High Court, Malaya)
A combined profile photograph is
inadmissible in evidence because it
shows more than identity.
Loke Soo Har v. PP [1954] MLJ 149
(High Court, Malaya)
It is improper to use photograph of
20
See also:
PP. v. Amar Singh [1948-49] MLJ
Supp. 55
Leong Ah Seng v. R [1956] MLJ 225
Ong Lai Kim v. PP and Ors. [1991] 3
MLJ 111
PP v. Chiong Cheng Wah [1988] 3
MLJ 56
11. PP v. Chan Choon Keong & Ors.
[1989] 2 MLJ 427
12. R. v. Turnbull & Ors. [1977] QB
224
13. Yau Heng Fang v. PP [1985] 2
MLJ 315
14. PP v. Hussain bin Sidin [1991] 3
CLJ 2570
Recommended Readings:
1. Mohd Akram. 1989. Identification
Evidence and Turnbull Guidelines :
Should Our CourtsFollow?.
Current Law Journal. 945.
WEEK Section 10: Evidence of Conspiracy Liew Kaling v. PP [1960] MLJ 306
7 – Things said or done by (High Court, Malaya)
conspirator in reference to common Statements made after the
design. completion of a crime are not
admissible for the purpose of
Things said or done by conspirators proving conspiracy.
are relevant against each other, under
two conditions: Khalid Panjang & Ors. v. PP [1964]
(a). There is reasonable ground to MLJ 108 (Federal Court)
believe that the conspiracy A statement made after the
exists. There was an carrying out of a conspiracy is
agreement between two or inadmissible to prove the
more persons to commit an conspiracy; ‘common intention’
offence or an actionable signifies a common intention
wrong. existing at the time when the
(b). It must be in reference to the statement was made.
common intention existing at See also:
the time, when the thing was,
said or written by one of Nik Hassan bin Nik Hussain v. PP
them. [1943] 14 MLJ 74
PP. v. Ng Lai Huat [1990] 2 MLJ 427
5. Mirza Akhbar v. K.E. [1940] AIR
(P.C.) 176
6. Chandrasekaran v. PP [1971] 1
MLJ 153
7. Sardul Singh v. State of Bombay
[1957} AIR (S.C.) 747
Alibi
Section 11, illustration (a).
Section 402 CPC to give notice within 10 days.
Absence of motive under s 8. Absence of
opportunity under s 7.
Cases:
1. Abu Bakar bin Ismail v. R [1954] MLJ
67 (High Court, Singapore)
(a). Similar fact evidence is
admissible to prove knowledge.
(b). Propensity evidence is not
admissible under section 11(b).
Section 54 provides that bad character Rule as laid down in Lord Herschell’s
is not admissible unless it is relevant. proposition No. 1 in Makin v. AG for NSW
When the accused is charged of an [1894] AC 57 at 67:
offence, the prosecution must try him “ It is undoubtedly not
with evidence. If there is sufficient competent for the
evidence he will be convicted. The prosecution to adduce
accused will not be tried by his bad evidence tending to show
history, bad disposition or propensity that the accused has been
to commit the bad act to prove a guilty of criminal acts
charge against him because evidence other than those covered
of bad character is prejudicial and by the indictment, for the
have no connection with the fact in purpose of leading to the
issue. The bad character is irrelevant. conclusion that the
Res alios acta. (Limb 1 of Makin) accused is a person likely
from his criminal conduct
or character to have
committed the offence for
which he is being tried.”
Recommended Readings:
1. Jeffrey Pinsler. 1989. Similar Fact
Evidence: The Principles of
Admissibility. Malayan Law
Journal. 2. lxxxi.
WEEK
9, 10 SECTIONS 17 TO 31: ADMISSION & S 17(1) reads with 18 & 21. S 17(1) gives
CONFESSION partial definition of admission. It is
completed by s 18. Under s 17(1) an
Provisions for Admission: Sections admission is a statement, oral or
17(1), 18-21, 31. documentary stating or suggest a fact in
Provisions for Confession: Sections issue or relevant fact made by people under
17(2), 24,25,26,27,28,29 &30. the circumstances found in s 18:
1. by parties to a proceeding
Admission is informal admission 2. by authorized agents
under sections 17 to 31. It is extra- 3. by representation
judicial admission or admission made 4. persons who have any proprietary
out of court. Formal admission in s 58 or pecuniary interest
– only applicable in civil cases. 5. persons from whom the parties to
Although the Malaysian Evidence Act the suit have derived their interest
owes its inspiration from India, it is in the subject matter of the suit.
slightly different. India does not have
s 17(2). Ours is similar in Sri Lanka, 1. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim
Singapore & Brunei. (No 3) Paul J.
Proceedings include criminal
Section 17: proceeding.
An admission is a statement, oral or
documentary, which suggests any 2. Mary Clyde v Wong Ah
inference as to any fact in issue or Mei (1970) 2 MLJ 163
relevant fact, and which is made by
any of the persons and under the
circumstances hereinafter
mentioned.
Cases:
MEANING AND PRINCIPLES OF CONFESSION 1. Seyadu v King [1951] 53 NLR
According to Stephen, confession is 251.
an admission made at any time, by a Direct admission of stabbing.
30
person charged with a crime, stating Read all the statements together. Does this
or suggesting an inference that he give rise to inference that he actually did
committed the crime. the offence. Use the objective test. Section
17(2) is much broader than the Indian law.
17(2): A confession is an admission
made at any time by a person 2. Pakala Narayana Swami v R
accused of an offence, stating or [1939] MLJ 48.
suggesting the inference that he Sir John: An admission of an incriminating
committed that offence. It has no fact is not a confession. To amount to
application in Sarawak. admission, it must be plenary in nature.
BUT
Lord Guest:
“Whether a statement
amounts to a confession or
not must be decided
objectively, taking the
statement as a whole and
without reference to
31
extrinsic facts.”
Other cases:.
R v Priestly (1965) 51 Cr App R 1
R v Prager [1972] 1 WLR 260.
R v Wilson [1981] 1 NZLR 316
33
Recommended readings.
In Datuk Mokhtar Hashim, 1. Windslow. 1977. The Admissibility of
Abdoolcader FJ said at p 272 that it Testimony at a Trial Within a Trial
appears from DPP v Pin Lin [976] : Not The Whole Truth. Malaya
AC 574 that the classic test of Law Review. 19. 312
admissibility of the accused’s
confession should be part objective 2. Winslow. 1988. Fair Trails : New
and part subjective. The objective Buttresses for Accused Person.
limb is satisfied if there is a threat, Malaya Law Review. 378
inducement or promise – in the
opinion of the court that the nature of
inducement caused the confession.
The subjective limb when the threat,
inducement or promise operates on
the mind of the accused through the
hope of escape or fear of punishment
connected with charge – If the
inducement leads to confession.
cannot depart at his own free will s 26, the Session Court Judge or magistrate
suffice to constitute custody. is required to comply with the procedure in
s 115 CPC when recording down such a
confession.) To ensure the accused gives
his statement freely without any
inducement or pressure. This is to
guarantee their voluntary nature.
190
8. Muka bin Musa v. PP [1964] 30
MLJ 275
9. Wai Chan Leong v. PP [1989] 3
MLJ 356
10. Abdul Ghani v. PP [1981] 1 MLJ
25
11. PP v. Norzilan bin Yaakob & Anor
[1989] 1 MLJ 442
Recommended Reading:
Chin. 1988. Statements by Accused
Persons in Custody. Malayan Law Journal.
3. clii.
2 ideas:
36
A discovery statement being taken PP v Basri bin Salihin [1993] 1 AMR 111.
must be recorded Sinnadurai J was of the opinion the
contemporaneously (matter of fact statement be tape recorded and videotaped
very difficult) (if possible). Follow Police A Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 in England
. Raja Azlan Shah J in PP v Er Ah Kiat
Must the information given in s 27 [1966] 1 MLJ 9, 10 held that even if the
given voluntarily? information was given involuntarily, it is
S 27 appears to be an exception to s still admissible under s 27. Cited Thurthell
24, 25 & 26. See statement of RAS in and Hunt that was referred to with
Chandrasekaran, approved in Goi approval by Viscount Radcliffe in Queen v
Ching Ang v PP [1999] 1 MLJ 507. Murugan Ramasamy [1964] 3 WLR 632,
636 (PC):
“It is worthwhile to make
the observation at this
point that the reason given
for allowing it to be proved
37
Recommended Readings:
1. Mohd Akram. 1990. The Scope of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Current Law Journal. 1. Part 1. xx.
2. Mohd Akram. 1990. The Scope of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Current Law Journal. 1. Part II.
xxxiii.
WEEK
11 ADMISSION & CONFESSION: Case law:
PART 2 Per Buhagiar J in Noor
Mohamed v Palanivelu &
41
Recommended Reading:
Mohd Akram. 1989. The Evidential Value
of a Retracted Confession, and Confession
of a Co- Accused Under Section 30 of The
Evidence Act. Current Law Journal. 2.
335.
44
See also:
3. Ng Lai Huat v. PP [1990] 2 MLJ
427
4. Ratten v. R [1972] AC 378
5. Walton v. Queen [1989] 63 ALJR
226
6. Teper v. R [1952] AC 480
7. Nahar Singh v. Pang Hon Chin
[1986] 2 MLJ 141
Recommended Readings:
1. Chang Min Tat. 1977. The Hearsay
Rule. Malayan Law Journal. 2. Vi
2. C. Singh. 1981. Hearsay Evidence.
Malayan Law Journal. 2. clxxxviii.
3. Mohd Akram. 1990. Hearsay
Evidence. Current Law Journal. 2. iii.
4. Odgers, The Hearsay Rule: A doctrine
in Retreat? A Reappraisal of the
Hearsay Rule in Singapore (1990)
32 Malaya Law Review 239
5. Mohd Akram. 1990.Hearsay Rule and
the Evidence Act 1950. Current
Law Journal . 1. i.
6. Campbell. 1971. Note Hearsay
Evidence of Conspiracy. Malaya
Law Review. 34. 217
46
Before we can admit hearsay Other relevant case: Satish Chandra Seal v
evidence under section 32, must lay a Emperor (1944) 2 Cal 76.
foundation.
4 reasons to admit hearsay evidence.
1. Maker who has since died.
(To prove death – to bring the
death certificate, or the
witness has seen him die, or
under s 108, if the person had
not been heard of in not less
than 7 years by the people
whom he would have
communicated, the court can
draw a presumption).
2. Maker cannot be found after
diligent search.
3. He has been incapable of
giving evidence because of
his illness of body and mind.
4. He is out of jurisdiction and
to call him would cause
unduly delay and expense.
A dying declaration to be in
writing, the actual words of the Where a dying declaration is made in
deceased must be recorded. answer to questions then the questions
should be recorded. If the statement is
taken down in writing by person such as
the police or a nurse, as far as possible
should be in Q & A form (ipsissima verba)
because or not the writer is bound to
introduce his own opinion, which is
hearsay.
Recommended Reading:
Jeffrey Pinsler. 1988. The Problem of
Recollection Concerning Statements of
Deceased Persons. Malaya Law Review.
30. 178.
Cases:
Section 32(b): Statements made in
ordinary course of business, and
1. Sim Tiew Bee v. PP [1973] 2 MLJ 200
consisting, of the following:
(Federal Court)
An out-of-court statement made in
a) Entry in books which are kept
the course of business is
in ordinary course of business
admissible if it is proved that the
or in discharge of
maker of it is dead, or cannot be
professional duty;
found, or has become incapable,
or whose attendance cannot be
b) Acknowledgement of receipt
procured.
of money, goods, securities or
property of any kind written 2. Syarikat Jengka v. Abdul Rashid
or signed by him. [1981] 1 MLJ 201 (Federal Court)
Before a statement can be
c) Documents used in commerce admissible under section 32(b), it
usually dated, written or must be proven to have been made
signed by him. in the ordinary course of business.
See also:
For example, see illustrations
(b) , (c) , (d) , (g) and (j). 3. PR v. Lin Ah Hoi [1992] CLJ 1375
4. Ng Yiu Kwok & Ors. v. PP [1989]
3MLJ 166
crime;
(d) Interest in escaping suit for
damages.
See also:
Section 32 (h): Statement by several
1. PP v. Forster [1988] 2 MLJ 594
persons, expressing feeling.
2. Lim Kim Luang v. Fee Shiah Yee
[1988] 1 MLJ 193
For example, see. Illustration (n).
3. Mohamed Abu Bakar v. Syed Abu
Tahir [1990] 1 MLJ 26
4. PP v. Abdul Rahim [1990] 3 MLJ
188
5. Shanmugan v. Pappa [1994] 2 CLJ
265
6. PP v. Robert Boon Teck Chua
[1995] 1 CLJ 102
7. Michael Anayo Akaboyk [1995] 3
MLJ 42
8. Nembard v. R - [1982] 1 All ER.
183
9. Tucker v Oldbury KDC [1912] 2
KB 317
10. Ward v. Pitt [1913] 2 KB 130
11. Du Bost v. Benesford [1810] 2
Camp 511
12. PP v. Mohd Fairus b. Omar [1997]
54
5 MLJ 57
Section 33: Evidence in previous 1. Kee Saik Kooi & Anor .v.
judicial proceedings. Regina[1955] MLJ 57 (High Court,
Malaya)
Depositions in former trials are Before any evidence can be
admissible when the witness: adduced under section 33, it is
(a) is dead , or incumbent on the party adducing
(b) cannot be found; or such evidence to prove the
(c) becomes incapable of giving prerequisite that the witness is
evidence; or dead or cannot be found or is
(d) is kept out of the way by the incapable of giving evidence.
adverse party; or
(e) cannot be produced without an
2. Mohamed Kunju v. P.P [ 1966] 1
amount of delay or expenses,
MLJ 271 (Federal Court)
which court considers
Evidence is admissible under
unreasonable.
section 33 when the court is
satisfied that the circumstances
Depositions by such witnesses:
contemplated in that section have
(a) in a judicial proceeding; or
been proved.
(b) before any person authorised by
law to take them.
See also:
Are relevant in a: 3. Duncan v. P.P [1980] 2 MLJ 195
(a) subsequent judicial proceeding: 4. Dato` Yap Peng v. P.P. [1993] 1
or MLJ 337
(b) later stage of the same 5. Union Alloy (M) Sdn. Bhd. v.
proceeding. Sykt. Pembenaan Yeoh Tiong
Lay Sdn. Bhd.[1993] 3 MLJ 167
Conditions of relevancy of such 6. P.P. v. Mohd. Jamil bin Yahya &
evidence are: Anor [1993] 3 MLJ 702
(a) if the proceeding was between 7. Lim Peng Rooi v. R [1952] MLJ
the same parties or 26
representatives; 8. See Yew Poo v. PP [1949] 15 MLJ
(b) if the adverse party in the first 131
proceeding had right and
opportunity to cross examine; Recommended Reading:
and
(c) if the question in issue were the
same in the first and Mohd Akram. 1991. Admissibility of
subsequent proceedings. Evidence in Former Proceedings under
Section 33 of the Evidence Act 1950.
Evidence given on a different Current Law Journal. 2. xxl.
occasion is also admissible to
contradict a witness, under section
155 or to corroborate a witness, under
section 157.
55
• Foreign law;
• Science;
• Art;
• Identity of handwriting; or
• Finger impressions.
When the need for expert evidence Expert evidence is only admissible to
arises furnish the court with scientific
information, which is unlikely to be outside
56
The judge has to enquire the Whether he had acquired the expertise by a
person’s qualification as an expert systematic academic study, or has an
in that particular field. exception in that field. He court can
determine by his knowledge and how he
acquired it. The rationale is that when the
court does not have the expectation on the
subject matter of that enquiry, and the court
cannot form an opinion without an expert,
the court can ask an expert to assist the
court.
Case law
Folkes v Chadd 99 ER 589
Case law:
An expert may base his opinion on a R v Mason (1911) 7 Cr App R 67.
description given to him.
A medical witness who had not seen
the body of a deceased person might
be asked whether, in his opinion,
assuming that the facts described by
another witness who had seen the
body are true, the wounds could have
been self-inflicted.
foreign law.
9. U.
Viswalingam v. Viswalingam
[1980] 1 MLJ 10.
English court had to have expert
evidence given on certain questions
regarding Muslim family law in
Malaysia.
10. Teng Kum Seng v. PP [1960] MLJ 225
(High Court, Malaya)
The evidence of an expert on handwriting,
especially Chinese characters must be
treated with caution.
Section 46 Facts bearing upon For example see, illustrations (a) and (b).
opinions of expert
Facts not otherwise relevant are Collector of Land Revenue v. Allapa
relevant if they support or are Chettiar [1971] 1 MLJ 43
inconsistent with the opinions of Singapore Finance Ltd. V. Lim Kah
experts when such opinions are Ngam [1984] 2 MLJ 202
relevant. Syarikat Perkapalan Timor v. UMBC
[1982] 2 MLJ 193
Facts not otherwise relevant, are
relevant:
if they support opinions of
experts, or
if they are inconsistent with
opinions of experts.
See also:
16. Syed Abu Bakar bin Ahmad [1984] 2
MLJ 19
17. PP v. Mohamed Kassim Yatim [1977]
1 MLJ 64
18. Chandrasekaran & Ors. v. PP [1971] 1
MLJ 153
19. Teng Kun Seng v. PP [1960] 26 MLJ
225
20. R. v. Lim Chin Sheng [1957] 23 MLJ
125
21. PP v. Lee Ee Teong [1953] 19 MLJ
244
22. Chin Sen Wah v. PP [1958] 24 MLJ
154
Wong Swee Chin v. PP [1981] 1 MLJ 212
OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS. (a). The role of the expert witness.
Ong Chan Tow v. R [1963] MLJ 160
(High Court, Singapore)
Experts should not be asked to give
conclusion on matters which are
eminently matters for the court to
decide.
See also:
PP v. Chong Wei Khan [1990] 3 MLJ
165
PP v. Lin Lian Chen [1991] 1 MLJ 316
64
Recommended Readings:
Case:
Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan
66
See also:
3. Lai Yong Koon v. PP [1962] MLJ 327
See also:
6. R v. Butterwasser [1948] 1 KB 4
7. R v. Winfield [1939] 4 All ER 164
8. Jones v. DPP [1962] A.C. 635
9. Maxwell v. DPP [1935] A.C. 309
10. Murdoch v. Taylor [1965] A.C.
574
11. Selvey v. DPP [1970] AC 304
12. Loke Soo Har v. PP (1954) MLJ
149
13. Girdari Lall v. PP [1946] MLJ 87
14. PP v. VeeranKutty [1990] 3 MLJ
498
15. PP v. Choo Chuan Wang [1992] 2
CLJ 1242
Recommended Readings:
Mohd Akram 2002. Judicial Notice and
the Judge’s Personal Knowledge: Current
Law Journal 4. liii.
Mohd Akram. 1986. Judicial Notice Vis-
A-Vis Personal Knowledge: Malaysian
Experience. Current Law Journal. 2. 288.
MODERN FORENSIC The component of forensic science is
TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW incorporated in the course of Evidence
OF EVIDENCE both in the first and second semester
courses
69
1. Development of forensic
technology In the first semester – when dealing
Forensic science and with sections 9, 11 and 45-51 – identity
techniques of things, persons places etc, fixing
time and place of occurrence of the
2. Forensic Evidence a class of subject matter, of trial, opinion thereto,
Real Evidence by DNA profiling, fingerprint and palm
a. Fingerprint identification – the tests involved in
b. Blood samples, blood identification of drugs, how to prove
alcohol levels, handwriting, and many related matters
grouping of blood – under sections 7 – cause, effect of
stains. fact in issue, section 10 – evidence of
c. Bodily samples conspiracy – are dealt in semester 1, in
d. DNA profiling Evidence 1. In Evidence II, particularly
e. Footprint when discussing documentary
f. Ballistic test computer generated documents, tape
g. Investigation of arson and video recording evidence – where
h. Visual images of the provence principle is important –
suspects – fotofit, essentials of forensic evidence is taught
subject to Turnbull in the context.
warning.
When discussing the law relating to
3. Legally and illegally obtained defences under the Evidence Act –eg.
forensic evidence Alibi, provocation, self defence
a. Consent to take non- drunkenness – and quantum of
intimate samples evidence required. At the very
b. Consent to take beginning of the course when dealing
intimate samples types of evidence elements of forensic
c. Police procedures in science are touched upon – especially
taking samples. in the area of ‘real evidence’ eg.
Resemblence, crime science visits,
4. Fingerprint border dispute on sea or land, motor
a. Breach of safeguard vehicle accident, arson –identification
b. Refusal of consent/ of the cause.
without consent
c. Destruction of Generally forensic law – involves
samples obtaining opinion of expert and non-
d. Expert evidence experts – under sections 7,9, 45-51 of
e. Identification the Evidence Act. This will be the
f. Standard for match calling of the experts.
g. Availability of
database of REFERENCES:
fingerprint samples. Phipson on Evidence – 15th Edition,
London: Sweet & Maxwell 2000
5. DNA profiling
DNA profiling technique Chapter 14 – Expert Evidence Law and
Restriction Fragment Length Practice by Tristam Hodgkinson,
Polymorphison (RFLP) London: Sweet & Maxwell 1990.
6. Blood samples
a. Inferences to be
drawn for refusal to
consent
b. Intimate samples
c. Production of
evidence
d. Blood tests- expert
evidence
e. Blood and other
scientific test of
paternity
7. Bodily Samples
a. Blood and body
tissues
b. Dental Impression
c. Hair
d. Intimate samples
e. Order for taking of
samples
f. Samples taken at
police station
71
g. Destruction of
samples
8. Drugs
2 methods of identifying
cannabis, ganja, heroin exhibit
Fingernails – chipping exhibit
Essential Readings 1. Pinsler J. 1992. Evidence Advocacy and the Legal Process.
Singapore: Butterworths.
Basic Text Books:
2. Chin Tet Yung. 1988. Evidence. Singapore: Butterworths.
Australia: Butterworths.
Prepared by:
Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Akram Shair Mohamad
Mr. Mohd Shahrizad Mohd Diah