LAW OF EVIDENCE 2 MARC

H 2014

LAW 591
TUTORIAL QUESTIONS
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF

1. What does it mean by examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination?

2. Section 142 of the Evidence Act 1950 does not generally prohibit leading questions in examination-
in-chief and re-examination of witnesses.

3. State briefly the difference between burden of proof, onus of proof and standard of proof.

4. Sawee is charged with the murder of his girlfriend, Kobees, by fatally shooting her with a revolver.
Sawee in his defence asserts that Kobees had attacked him first with a butcher’s knife when she
found out that Sawee was seeing another girl. Consider the burden and the standard of proof of
Sawee and the Prosecution.

5. Pipit and Enggang were jointly charged with kidnapping and rapping of Melati in a dark lane near
hotel duta in Kuala Lumpur. They claimed that Melati followed them voluntarily and consented to
intercourse. When Melati was found by the police the following day, she did not complain to her
father about the incident. The next day after she went to see a doctor, a police report was lodged
by Melati’s father after the doctor examined Melati.

Pipit had several previous convictions of raping young girls, whilst Enggang was acquitted when
previously charged with the same offence.

In evidence Pipit stated:

“Enggang had planned the kidnapping and rape all along. Initially I did not want to participate in
the wrongdoing but I later consented because Enggang had threatened to hurt me. Furthermore
he is a six footer and I am afraid of him”.

In cross examination, Enggang rejected Pipit’s version and called him a big liar.

During examination in chief of Melati, the prosecution had asked several leading questions.

Discuss the evidential issues involved.

6. On 11 December 2011, Chin Chow was charged in the Penang High Court for trafficking in
cannabis weighing 1,396.7 gram contrary to section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
The prosecution evidence was that on 8 December 2010, Chin Chow had entered a factory
carrying a small brown coloured zip bag ('the brown bag') and was engaged in conversation with a
security guard, Ramu, who was on duty at the factory. It was alleged by Ramu at the trial, that Chin
Chow showed him the contents of the bag, which included what appeared to be herbal material.
After making a telephone call, Chin Chow took the brown bag and returned to and entered a
parked lorry, driven by Paul, and deposited the bag in the driver's cabin. Rama called the police

Habibah Omar
Lecturer of Law
 LAW OF EVIDENCE 2 MARC
H 2014

who came to the factory and conducted a search on the lorry. Two bags were discovered in a
compartment behind the driver's seat, one the brown bag containing cannabis and Chin Chow's
bank book but nothing else incriminating, the other a yellow bag containing Paul's bank book. Both
Chin Chow and Paul were arrested. Paul, who was later released, testified at the trial that the
yellow bag belonged to him and the brown bag belonged to Chin Chow. Chin Chow argued in his
defence that he had been framed, claiming that the yellow bag was his, that he had no knowledge
of the brown bag and had never carried it and that his bank book had been taken from the lorry and
planted in the brown bag. At the end of the prosecution case, in response to the defence's
submission that there was no case to answer, the judge accepted the evidence of Ramu and ruled
that the prosecution had established a prima facie case.

Based on the above factual situation, answer the following questions with reference to statutory
provisions and judicial precedents.

a) Who bears the duty of satisfying the court of the guilt of Chin Chow? Explain the nature of the
duty.
(7.5 marks)

b) What is the nature of the duty that lies on Chin Chow in rebutting the presumption of
possession under section 39B(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952?

(7.5 marks)

c) Explain the standard of proof that the prosecutor has to discharge in the above factual
situation at the end of his case.
(10 marks)

(DEC 2013)

Habibah Omar
Lecturer of Law