Module on Expert Witness Evidence

Fact Witness: Testifies to objective observations of facts via direct senses.
Expert Witness: Testifies to subjective assessments and interpretations of facts (opinions) and may also provide factual evidence.

Section 45 Evidence Act 1950: Relates to the admissibility of expert witnesses specially skilled in foreign law, science, art, handwriting, or finger impressions.
Section 46 Evidence Act: Relates to facts bearing upon the opinions of experts.
Section 51 Evidence Act: Relates to the grounds of an opinion when relevant.
Section 399 Criminal Procedure Code: Relates to reports made by certain designated persons.

Definition: An expert possesses relevant skills through academic qualifications and/or experience.
Admissibility: In PP v Muhd. Bin Sulaiman [1982] 2 MLJ 320, FC, the court held that an expert need not be skilled through special study; experience is sufficient for admissibility, while lack of professional knowledge affects only the weight of the evidence.
Purpose: To provide information outside the knowledge and experience of a judge. The judge is assisted by but not compelled by expert evidence (Syed Abu Bakar b Ahmad v PP [1984] 2 MLJ 19,23).

Phase 1: Qualification: Adducing evidence on academic/professional qualifications, current position, training, and membership in professional bodies.
Phase 2: Foundations: Establishing the facts and circumstances upon which the opinion is based.
Phase 3: Opinion: Delivering the expert conclusion.
Specific Areas of Inquiry: * Handling of exhibits (before/after tests). * Types of analysis conducted and equipment used. * Precautionary measures taken to ensure exhibits are not mixed up (e.g., storage, access control, and key security).

During the Introduction and Qualification phases, the following sample questions are addressed to the witness:

Introduction: "Where are you working…?", "As a … ?", "When did you start to work as a government chemist?"
Qualification: "Tell the court your academic qualification?", "State the courses that you have attended.", "Are you a member of any professional bodies that related to your current work?", "Have you received any training while on work?"
Experiences: "Have you conducted any analysis on dangerous drugs?", "What are the type of drugs that you have analysed before?"
Expert evidence: "Have you given any evidence in court?", "Throughout your knowledge, is your testimony ever being admitted by the court?"
Analysis: "What type of analysis that you conducted to each exhibit?", "What is the method that you used?", "Did you used any equipment to analyze?", "What are those equipment?", "Could you explain how the analysis works?", "What is the result of your analysis?", "What is your conclusion of the analysis?"
Precautionary measures: "When you didn’t do any analysis, where did you keep the exhibit?", "Any other exhibits that was kept together with?", "How did you ensure that the exhibit is not mixed-up with other case?", "Did any other person has access to the place the exhibit was kept?", "Is the exhibit kept in locked?", "Who is keeping the key?", "Did any other person else has the key to the exhibit?"

PP v Haniff Basri (2003): Murder trial context.
AZILAH HADRI & ANOR V PP (FC 2013): Regarding the murder of Mongolian lady ALTANTUYA SHAARIIBUU at Puncak Alam, Selangor.
PATHMANABHAN & ORS V PP (HC SHAH ALAM)(2013): Regarding the murder of Sosilawati.
Leong Wing Kong v PP (1994): The court has discretion to decide if an issue constitutes science or art.
PP v Sam Hong Choy (1995): Serviceability of a pistol was deemed not to require special scientific skills.
Dato Mokhtar Hashim v PP (1983): Noted that "previous testification in court as an expert witness is no doubt an added considerations but not necessarily the primary consideration."
Sim Ah Oh v PP [1962] MLJ 42: Established that experts must elaborate and provide reasons for their findings to the court.