TRIAL PROCESS

- Sec 173(f)(i) : when the case for the prosecution is concluded, the court shall
consider whether or not the prosecution has made out a prima facie case on the
offence charged
- Standard of proof at the end of prosecution stage:
- Prosecution = prima facie
- Defence = no case to answer
- Sec 173(f)(ii) : no prima facie = acquit
- Sec 173(h)(i) : prima facie = enter defence
- Sec 173(h)(iii) : prima facie means credible evidence adduced proving each of the
ingredients of the offence which if unrebutted/unexplained would warrant a conviction
- Mr Losali v PP : at the close of the prosecution stage, the judge must conduct a
maximum evaluation of the evidence
- The process of evaluating involves the court to consider whether:
1. Every element or single ingredient of the offence is made out
- Periasamy v PP
The appeal is allowed as the appellate judge have wrongly made out a prima
facie case without an important element of CBT that is dishonesty by treating
the fact that the loan is certified, approved and paid out the loan as the actus
reus without the element of negligence
2. Nexus is established between the accused and the offence
- PP v Hanif Basree
- The accused was acquitted as there was failure to establish the connection
between the accused and the offence of murder as the evidence adduced
produced DNA of an unknown third party such as the semen from vaginal
swab and this raised doubts as to who committed the offence, whether the
accused or the unknown male
3. The evidence is accurate and credible
- Balachandran v PP
It is the duty of the learned trial judge to make a positive evaluation of the
evidence by making a careful analysis of the credibility and reliability of the
witnesses for the prosecution
- What amounts to credible evidence:
- Evidence of witness may be direct evidence
- Corroboration of witness evidence may be needed for certain class of
witnesses - child witness (sec 133A EA), accomplice (sec 133 EA),
evidence in sexual cases (Ahmad Nazari Abd Majid v PP)
- Circumstantial evidence which is the evidence of the surrounding
circumstances where although not directly related to the facts in issue,
would be capable of proving the guilt of the accused when all the
evidence is taken as a whole (PP v Muniandy Suppiah)
- Sec 174(b) : accused may sum up his case in summary trials
- Sec 174(c) : after the accused adduced evidence, prosecution has the right to
reply
- Standard of proof at the end of the defence’s case:
- Sec 173(m)(i) : court to consider all evidence adduced at the conclusion of
the trial and decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt
- Sochima Okoye v PP
The burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused is
upon the prosecution and there is no similar burden placed on the accused to
prove his innocence
- Sec 173(m)(ii) : if prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt, accused is
found guilty and may be convicted and sentenced on it
- Sec 173(m)(iii) : if beyond reasonable doubt is not proved, accused may be
acquitted
- Arulpragasan v PP
The onus lies on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt but on
the part of the accused, it is sufficient to him in his defence to only cast a
doubt on the prosecution case to entitle him to an acquittal
- Sec 173(ha) : three options when accused enters defence
- Balachandran v PP
The prima facie evidence will constitute proof of beyond reasonable doubt
when accused remain silent as there is an absence of any further evidence
for consideration
- At the end of the summary trial, the court may convict or acquit the accused
based on the finding and judgement by the court
- Mat v PP
1. Satisfied beyond reasonable doubt = convict
2. Believe or accept accused explanation = acquit
3. Does not believe or accept accused explanation = convict (explanation
does not raise reasonable doubt as to his guilt), acquit (explanation
raises reasonable doubt as to his guilt)