LAW OF EVIDENCE 2 March

2014

LAW OF EVIDENCE 2 (LAW 591)

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS
CHARACTER EVIDENCE

1. What is character evidence?

2. What is the distinction between reputation and disposition?

3. What is the scope of character evidence in civil proceedings?

4. What is the scope of character evidence in criminal proceedings?

5. Ali, Samy and Ah Chong are jointly charged with house trespass at night under section 457 of the
Penal Code of a house in Shah Alam. Each of them has several previous convictions for the same
offence. The only prosecution evidence which connects them with the crime is that of Vasu, who
claims to have driven their getaway car and has now turned prosecution witness.

Consider the following situations:

(a) Ali did not give evidence but his counsel puts it to Vasu in cross-examination that he has six
previous convictions for offences involving theft and Vasu admits this to be true.

Can the prosecution lead evidence of Ali’s previous convictions?

(b) Samy says in evidence that Vasu is a liar. Can the prosecution cross-examine Samy on his
previous convictions?

(c) Ah Chong says in evidence that Ali, Samy and Vasu invited him to help them with the break in
but he refused and did not take part. Can Ali’s counsel cross examine Ah Chong on his
previous convictions?

6. Robin and Hood were being jointly tried for attempted burglary of a shop. Robin has two previous
convictions for burglary when, on each occasion, he gained entry to a shop using skeleton keys.
Hood has a conviction for perjury. The prosecution asserted that on this occasion, both Robin and
Hood were using a set of skeleton keys to try and gain entry to the shop. Hood testified that he was
unaware that Robin has any keys and says that he was merely sheltering from the rain. When
asked if he saw Robin try to gain entry to the shop he stated that he saw him fiddling with the lock
on the shop door. The trial judge then allowed the prosecution to reveal Hood’s previous
convictions.

Robin’s counsel accused the police planting the keys on his client. He also called Reverend Little
John who testified that Robin is a regular attendee at church. The trial judge then allowed the
prosecution to reveal the existence and nature of Robin’s previous convictions. Robin did not give
evidence in court.

Robin and Hood were convicted of the offence and seek your advice any grounds of appeal they
might have.

Habibah Omar
Lecturer of Law
 LAW OF EVIDENCE 2 March
2014

7. Ahmad was charged for rape. Consider the admissibility of the following evidence by treating them
as independent of each other.

a) Ahmad did not give evidence. The prosecution called a witness to prove that Ahmad has a
reputation of a person who has the tendency of committing gross sexual indecency.
(5 marks)

b) Ahmad did not give evidence. The prosecutor cross-examined the defence witnesses on
Ahmad’s reputation as a person who has the tendency of committing gross sexual indecency.
(5 marks)

c) Ahmad gave evidence from the witness dock. The prosecutor in cross-examination suggested
that he is a person who had the tendency of committing gross sexual indecency.
(5 marks)

d) During Ahmad’s examination in chief, he testified that he is a man of good moral and
reputation. The prosecutor subsequently cross examined him on two police reports that were
made against him for sexual assault on two other ladies.
(5 marks)

e) During his examination in chief, Ahmad said that "PW1 was lying to the court, I did not make
the sensual pass on her. She was the one that began it first, and she was the one that made
the sexual invitation. She consented to the intercourse" . As a result, the prosecution cross
examined him on two police reports made against him by PW1 for stalking her.
(5 marks)

(DEC 2013)

Habibah Omar
Lecturer of Law