Whether statement made by Needle can be excluded by court in exercise of its

discretion?

1. My Lord, allow me to present my issue which is Whether statement made by

Needle can be excluded by court in exercise of its discretion?
2. As according to Section 136 of the Evidence Act it give the court power of
discretion to decide the admissibility of evidence based on the relevancy of the
evidence.
3. Allow me to point that the question of admissibility of evidence is a question of law
and it must was determine by the judge
4. Therefore it was the judge duty to ensure that the evidence that was tendered in court
was obtain through a lawful manners and as according with the Act.
5. This discreation of power vested to the judge can seen in the case of PP v DSAI
[1999] 2 MLJ 1 where the judge is empowered to allow such evidence as in his
opinion is relevant and admissible
6. Generally , illegaly obtain evidence is admissible in court - Re Kah Wah Video
(Ipoh) Sdn Bhd [1987]

The judge stated the rules ,

‘the test to be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is

relevant to the matter in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not concerned
with how the evidence was obtained”.
7. My Lord , as Section 136 stated , the court always has discreation to disallow
evidence if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused.
8. This is an exception to the rules that sated in the Re Kah Wah Video (Ipoh) Sdn Bhd
[1987]
9. This exception was laid in the case of Goi Ching Ang v PP [1999] 1 MLJ 507 –
where the judges stated that
“Fairness requires fair trial which in turn, needs fair procedure. Fair process require
that the legitimate interests of both the Prosecution and the defence are adequately
provided for.
10. While the police ought o be given a reasonable opportunity to question suspects and
accused persons, in its investigation, the accused persons, in its investigation , the
accused must also be protected from danger of extraction on unreliable statements and
(even if reliable ) by some improper means.
11. Therefore My Lord, Evidence obtained in an oppressive manner by force or against
the wishes of an accused person or by trick or by conduct of which the police ought
not to take advantages, would operate unfairly against the accused.
12. As stated in the facts , Needle was treated poorly by the police officer he also was
denied the medical attention instead keep to be interrogated by the police to his
involvement to drug. He only gat the medical attention after the wound getting worst
when he requested for it at the extension of remand hearing on 8/1/2020before
Magistrate Pan Nya Poo after his lacerated wound starting seeping puss. This clearly
shows the manners of police toward him during the process.
13. The police already treated him with unfairness even from he was started to get
.arrested.
14. S27 of Evidence Act cannot be apply as it prejudicial to Needle’s right as it will
outweigh the facts he was treated with unfairness.
15. My Lord . as to conclude my submission should in the discretion of the court the
statement made by Needle be rejection for admission as it is not admissible and as he
was treated with unfairness and poorly by the police .