Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Discussion 2 TG Athirah
Discussion 2 TG Athirah
A146465
QUESTION 1
Argument for Bersih:
The absence of specified period in the search warrant would raise
doubt as to the originality of the evidence tendered since there
could be a possibility of planting of evidence at the search place.
Further, it is immaterial whether such evidence is obtained illegally
or otherwise. As such, in in Wong Liang Nguk v PP, the appellant
was convicted of assisting in carrying on a public lottery contrary to
section 4(i)(c) of the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance. The
charge was that, she was knowingly carrying in a motor car, of
which she was the sole occupant, a number of books containing the
records of stakes relating to 1000 character lottery. The evidence
against the appellant consisted of three books which the police had
seized from her possessions when he stopped and searched her car
such a search was clearly unlawful because the police officer was
not authorised to do so under the Common Gaming Houses
Ordinance.
The judge held that the fact that the evidence is unlawfully
obtained will not affect its admissibility. If the police officer had no
authority to search then no doubt he would have been open to some
sort of civil action, but the question of his authority to search is
completely irrelevant to the admissibility of the evidence. Also, in
the landmark case Kuruma v The Queen, the appellant was
convicted of being in unlawful possession of 2 rounds of ammunition
contrary to Regulation 8A(1)(b) of Emergency Regulations, 1952. He
was sentenced to death. The issue was whether the evidence of
possession of ammunition had been illegally obtained. The court
held that the test to be applied in considering whether the evidence
is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is,
it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how the
evidence was obtained.
Therefore, pertaining to the facts, the failure on the part of the
prosecutor to ensure that the search warrant specifies the time of its
enforcement would raise doubt on the evidence tendered, since this
would cause prejudice to Bersih because the duration from 4 th to
15th July is deemed to be long enough for the police inspector to
plant any evidence at the search place. Plus, even if Bersih is
charged for an offence of retaining stolen property under the Penal
Code, the cases had shown that although the evidence was
unlawfully obtained, the court would not be concern with that so
long as it is relevant.