SUMMARY TRIAL

THE PROCEEDINGS
Brought before the court

Prima facie case Charge is read and explained

Submission at close of prosecution

Plea is taken
case (Defence and Prosecution)

Examining the witness Prosecution Stage

 What is a Crime ?

■ “A socially harmful act or omission that breaches the values protected by a state. It is an
event prohibited by law, one which can be followed by prosecution in criminal
proceedings and, thereafter, by punishment on conviction”.

■ The Concept of Crime in International Criminal Law . Iryna Marchuk

 Flow of Criminal Matter.
1. The Crime.
2. The Arrest. (S15)
1.How arrest is effected
3. Remand. (S117)
1.Conditions for remand.
4. The charge. ( S152-S154)
1.Charge
5. Bail. (S387-S388)
1.Conditions for Bail.
6. Pre Trial.
7. Exchange of Documents. (51A)
8. Alibi (402A)
9. Plea Bargaining (172C)
■ Trial – Prosecution Case. (S180)
– Standard to prove ? 
■ Decision at end of Prosecution Case. (S182A)

■ Trial – Defense Case.

– Accused Options
■ Keep Quiet
■ Give Statement
■ Statement from the dock.

■ Decision.
– Mitigation.
– Stay.
S180 - Procedure after conclusion of
case for prosecution
■ (1) When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the
prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused.
■ (2) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against
the accused, the Court shall record an order of acquittal.
■ (3) If the Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused on
the offence charged the Court shall call upon the accused to enter on his defence.
■ (4) For the purpose of this section, a prima facie case is made out against the accused
where the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the
offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction.
  Mat v. PP [1963] 29 MLJ 263
■ The appellant charged with theft of two chickens and alternatively with dishonestly retaining stolen property namely
one chicken gave evidence and called witnesses in his defence at the end of which he was convicted because in the
words of the learned Magistrate "On the whole I am unable to believe the defence." I agree with Inche Christie,
Counsel for the appellant, that the learned Magistrate has seriously misdirected himself as to the meaning of the burden
of proof by the accused in eases where it is necessary for him to rebut the prosecution case against him.

■ The correct law for Magistrates to apply is as follows. If you accept the explanation given by or on behalf of the
accused, you must of course acquit. But this does not entitle you to convict if you do not believe that explanation, for
he is still entitled to an acquittal if it raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, as the onus of proving his
guilt lies throughout on the prosecution. If upon the whole evidence you are left in a real state of doubt, the prosecution
has failed to satisfy the onus of proof which lies upon it.

■ The position may be conveniently stated as follows:

■ (a) If you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt ........ Convict.
■ (b) If you accept or believe the accused’s explanation.. Acquit.
■ (c) If you do not accept or believe the accused’s explanation.......Do not convict but consider the next steps below.
■ (d) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation and that explanation does not raise in your mind a
reasonable doubt as to his guilt........ Convict
■ (e) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation but nevertheless it raises in your mind a reasonable doubt
as to his guilt.. Acquit
 Case study
PP v. ABDUL RAHMAN MAHIDDIN
MAGISTRATE COURT, SHAH ALAM

■ Charge:
■ "Bahawa kamu pada 22/09/2016 jam lebih kurang 9.00 pagi bertempat di perkarangan
IPD Seksyen 9 Shah Alam di dalam daerah Petaling di dalam negeri Selangor dengan niat
curang telah menyimpan harta curi iaitu seutas jam tangan jenama Aquaracer no siri
RRL2045 milik Amal bin Adul Aziz KPT: 840117145003 yang dilaporkan hilang di rumah
No 9 Jalan Magnesium 7/106C Seksyen 7 Shah Alam bersabit Sek. 6 Rpt 7592/16 dengan
mengetahui atau ada sebab mempercayai bahawa harta tersebut adalah harta curi. Oleh
yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh di hukum di
bawah Seksyen 411 Kanun Keseksaan"
■ [4] At the close of the Prosecution case, the court has carefully perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution
through its five witnesses and examined the evidence in support of the case. Section 173(h)(iii) and Section 180 of the
Criminal Procedure Code set out the procedure to be followed at the conclusion of the prosecution's case;

■ Section 180. Procedure after conclusion of case for prosecution

■ (1) When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a
prima facie case against the accused.

■ (2) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against the accused, the Court shall
record an order of acquittal.

■ (3) If the Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused, the Court shall call upon the
accused to enter his defence.

■ (4) For the purpose of this section, a prima facie case is made out against the accused where the prosecution has
adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a
conviction.
■ [5] What is a prima facie case has been clearly spelt out in the Court of Appeal case of Looi Kow
Chai & Anor v. PP [2003] 1 CLJ and the case of Looi Kow Chai & Anor was referred to in the
Federal Court cases of Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85; [2005] 2 MLJ 316 and Ahmad Najib
bin Aris v. PP [2009] 2 CLJ 800also the more recent Federal Court Case of Magendran Mohan v.
PP [2011] 1 CLJ 805 where it was stated that;

■ a) In deciding whether a prima facie case has been established under the new section 180 of
CPC, a maximum evaluation of all the evidence adduced by the prosecution must be done and a
prima facie case is one that is sufficient for the accused to answer, and the evidence adduced
must be such that it can only be surmounted by evidence in rebuttal.

■ b) If the evidence is unrebutted, and the accused remains silent, he must be convicted. Therefore,
the test to be applied at the end of prosecution's case is whether there is sufficient evidence to
convict the accused if he chooses to remain silent, which if the answer is affirmative, means that
prima facie has been made out.

■ c) Whenever the accused has chosen to remain silent, there is no necessity to re-evaluate the
evidence to determine whether there is a reasonable doubt in the absence of any further evidence.