PYQ Oct 2022

October 2022 Question 1: Murder Case Analysis

Case Overview

  • Defendants: Houdin and Bidin (initially jointly charged).
  • Victim: Zelie
  • Charge: Murder.
  • Key Development:
    • Bidin pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and became a prosecution witness.

Prosecution Evidence

  • Bidin's Evidence:
    • Houdin and Zelie argued.
    • Houdin stabbed Zelie at Bidin's house.
  • Pathologist (Sith)'s Evidence:
    • Blood and skin tissues from Zelie's fingernails matched Houdin's DNA.
  • Inspector Boris' Evidence:
    • Found Zelie alive at the scene.
    • Zelie was sent to the hospital.
    • Eight hours later, Zelie identified Houdin as the cause of her injuries.
    • Zelie died four hours after the statement.

Part A: Credibility of Bidin's Evidence (Accomplice)

Accomplice Definition
  • Define who is an accomplice.
  • Davis v DPP: An accomplice is a participant in a crime, whether principal or secondary.
  • case name followed Davis v DPP.
Competency of Accomplice (Section 133)
  • Section 133: An accomplice is a competent witness against the accused.
Credibility vs. Admissibility
  • Focus on the weight to be given to the evidence, not admissibility.
Rationale for Caution
  • Accomplices may have self-interest in shifting blame.
  • Bidin's potential motive to blame Houdin.
Section 133 and 114(b)
  • Section 133: Conviction is not illegal solely based on uncorroborated accomplice evidence.
  • Section 114(b): Court may presume an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars.
  • Discuss case name and the corroboration warning.
Corroboration Warning
  • Explain why a judge must direct his mind and provide a corroboration warning, even if conviction isn't illegal without it.
  • The warning serves as a check and balance.
  • Relate credibility to the weight of evidence.
Additional Points and Cases
  • Dalib Bhagwan Singh: A relevant case to support arguments.
  • Probative Value vs. Prejudicial Effect: Ensure probative value outweighs the potential prejudicial effect.
  • Submission: The judge should take corroborative warning into account.
Conclusion
  • Even though section 133 allows conviction, corroboration warning acts as a check and balance due to credibility concerns.
  • Tan Sibun (case): Rationale when receiving accomplice evidence.

Part B: Relevance of Pathologist (Sith)'s Evidence

Expert Witness
  • Sith is a pathologist (expert witness).
  • General rule: Opinion evidence is typically inadmissible.
  • Exception: Section 45 allows expert evidence on matters of science, etc.
  • Yvonne says discuss section 45.
Section 5 and 9
  • Section 5: Fact in issue and relevant facts.
  • Section 9: Necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.
Fact vs. Relevant Fact
  • Is the DNA evidence a fact in issue or a relevant fact?
  • DNA Evidence: Indicates an opportunity or interaction at the crime scene rather than conclusive proof of guilt.
Circumstantial Evidence
  • The DNA match is circumstantial evidence.
  • Cases: Your , Luis Akim: DNA evidence shows a possibility of being at the crime scene.
Judicial Inference
  • It's up to the court to make inferences based on further evidence.

Part C: Admissibility of Inspector Boris' Evidence

Hearsay Evidence
  • Boris' evidence is hearsay (out-of-court statement).
  • Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it falls under a known exception.
Dying Declaration (Section 32(1)(a))
  • Section 32(1)(a): Dying declaration exception.
  • Conditions for admissibility:
    • Maker (Zelie) must be dead.
    • The case must concern the cause of the maker's death.
    • The maker must have made a statement as to the cause of their death.
Additional Cases and Considerations
  • King v Samara Kunbanda
  • Haji Saleh, Chandrasegra
  • Bring in 104 illustration a as well.
  • Santok Singh, Alanara, Aswami
  • Whether absolute words were used.
  • The examiner is asking about admissibility only. Right?

Question 2: Best Evidence Rule & Parole Evidence Rule

Part A: Best Evidence Rule
  • Definition: The best evidence is that which the nature of the case will admit.
  • Oral Evidence: Section 60 states oral evidence must be direct.
  • Omichan v Baker: Law Lords laid down that there is but one general rule of evidence.
Admissibility Debate
  • Is the best evidence rule a theory or does it govern admissibility?
  • Queen v Bloom: Best evidence rule has no effect on admissibility.
  • Norfaizal, Datohaji Asman
  • Section 90(a)
Case Example
  • Yana Sigrun's case: Modern application of best evidence rule.
Admissibility and Weight
  • Admissibility is a question of law.
  • Weight is the court's evaluation of the evidence
Best Evidence Rule Summary
  • What's the evidence that is the most useful and applicable.
Key Points
  • In order to secure exhibits, you must secure the evidence
Cases to Note
  • KPM Hikmat
  • Norfaizal
Part B: Parole Evidence Rule
  • Definition: Exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence.
  • Section 91: Relates to parole evidence.
  • Section 92: Exclusion of evidence of an oral agreement.
  • Read 91 with 92.
  • Prestige Global Resources v Gavungan Hartamas.
  • Samar World Asia Sudan Bharat v RHB Bank.
  • Examples in 91.
Key Points
  • SD Singham.
Case names Given
  • Chase Perdama

Question 3: Defamation Case - Burden and Standard of Proof

Case Summary
  • Parties: John (politician) and Ram (opponent).
  • Issue: Defamation.
  • Allegation: John uttered defamatory words against Ram, who alleges tarnished reputation.
  • Defense: John claims justification and qualified privilege, citing rumors.
Part A: Burden and Standard of Proof
  • Ram (plaintiff) has the burden of proof that John made defamatory remarks.
  • Standard of Proof: Civil standard - balance of probabilities (Miller v Minister of Pensions).
  • John (defendant) has an evidential burden to prove his defense (he heard rumors).
Qualified Privilege
  • John has to prove he made the statement and that he was acting in good faith. Right?
  • One point: Ram can advise he can act in John's malice and show his conduct to say it wasn't an intent to cause actual damage.
Section 106
  • Burden of proving fact, within is not applicable here
General Principles
  • Relate back to all facts throughout.
Part B: Admissibility of John's Evidence (Rumors)
  • John's evidence: He heard rumors in the community about Ram and his mistresses.
  • Key consideration Right?: It is hearsay what he heard in this case should he should not be the point is he prove it as this and that.
  • Right?: Is this bad or not by the court.
John
  • If you can bring these people in to do something.
  • What does a rumor entail:
    • Prove if it is true.
    • Does he really have this person or have they.
Section 32.1H
  • Is it used to bring in some of these people into cases.
  • Look into 32.34 and so on.
  • You can only know this from a particular expression.
  • What of fact
Key points that could be wrong or right in the following.
Character
  • Need to see their is more to the question in certain area or not.
  • Is the John the character evidence should not be suitable here
  • That is for the key things to know. Right now. That is with everything