SUMMARY CASE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v.

SANASSI [1970] 2 MLJ 198

1- Facts of the case:

At the conclusion of the prosecution case, the accused was asked to enter his defence, and he chose to
make an unsworn statement from the dock. During that statement, he referred to various statements he
claimed he made to the police investigating officer during his investigations. The question arose as to
whether the accused could make such a statement from the dock, and whether a statement that would
otherwise be inadmissible could be included in the statement if the accused chose to make such a
statement from the dock.

2- Court’s decision:

The High Court Malacca decided that the accused has the right to make an unsworn statement from the
dock, but such a statement is not evidence, and the accused cannot be a witness, and the parts of the
statement relating to what the accused told the investigation officer during the course of the
investigation should be deleted.

3- The ground of Judgment:

Sharma J in delivering his judgment for the court’s decision stated that an unsworn statement can be
made from the dock but the statement itself cannot be regarded as strict evidence as it was delivered
after the settlement of submitting the shreds of evidence for the defence of the accusation that had
been charged to the accused. This can be referred to as Section 249 of the Straits Settlements Criminal
Procedure Code provides that the court may, at any time during the trial or inquiry, ask the accused
specific questions in order to allow him to explain any circumstances that may appear in the evidence
against him. As a result, that section has a very limited application and is not a bar to the accused's right
under our law to make a statement from the witness stand. It shows that the unsworn statement can be
made however it had limited scope that the court only took to review the answer to their questions and
not regard it as evidence.

Furthermore, the ordinary meaning of s. 4(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations Ordinance appears to
imply that a witness is a person who may be lawfully examined or who may give evidence or be required
to give evidence, and a witness is required to take an oath under s. 4(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations
Ordinance. Sharma J believes that any witness in a case is required to give evidence under oath or
affirmation. A "witness" must make an oral statement to the Court in order for it to be considered
"evidence" under section 3 of the Evidence Ordinance. A witness can only testify from the witness box,
not from the dock or anywhere else.

Hence, Sharma J in his thought explained that anyone who is entitled to be called as a witness in a case
must take an oath or affirmation as required by section 4(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations Ordinance.
As a result, he holds that an accused's statement from the dock is not evidence. It could be argued that
because section 124 of the Straits Settlements Criminal Procedure Code only prohibits the use of
statements made to police during an investigation as evidence, such statements could be used while the
accused was making an unsworn statement from the dock.

4- Commentary:

In my opinion, I absolutely agree with Sharma J’s judgment on the issue related to the unsworn
statement in the dock. I refer to Section 249 of the Straits Settlements Criminal Procedure Code that the
unsworn statement in the dock can be made but it is limited only to matters that related to questions
that had been asked by the court to the respondent. Thus, the unsworn statement has not been relied
upon as evidence.

Moreover, Section 4(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations Ordinance explained that anyone who is
entitled to testify in a case must take an oath or affirmation. It means that the unsworn statement is not
a part of an oath or affirmation that can be testified or authenticated as a piece of evidence. Therefore,
an oath or affirmation can be regarded as a piece of evidence and not an unsworn statement as it is not
part of the oath or affirmation.

Besides that, in light of the provisions of Section 5 of the Straits Settlements Criminal Procedure Code, I
believe the accused has every right to make an unsworn statement from the dock; however, as I
previously stated, such a statement does not constitute evidence, and the accused making such a
statement cannot be a witness. It is entirely up to the legislature to decide whether the procedure of the
Courts in this country, which is now sovereign and independent, should be based on a foreign
enactment, and whether any amendment made to its own laws by a foreign Government should still be
binding on us, who have our own supreme legislature.

Hence, in the meantime, the judgment made by Sharma J was based only on the limited sources of law
and legislation and therefore it is hard to find the references for the case. Even though our law
especially the evidence ordinance was pari materia with India’s Evidence ordinance, there is a certain
part of the ordinance that is different from our ordinance. Therefore, the revision and amendment of
the Evidence Act help to alter and coordinate the problem that occurred with the newest provided laws
that can cover up the matters that were not in the ordinance.

5- Conclusion:

To sum up, the unsworn statement in the dock can be made by the accused by it is limited only to
convey the questions from the court and not labeled as a piece of evidence in the court. If the accused
makes an oath or affirmation in the dock, the oath and affirmation from the accused can be regarded as
a shred of evidence.