FINAL EXAMINATION

(FEBRUARY 2020 SESSION)

LEGAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW
CLW20403

LECTURER :……………………………………………………………………..

MATRIC NO : ………………………... PROGRAMME : …………

VENUE : ………………………………………….

JUNE 2020 DURATION: 3 HOURS

INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Candidates must read all questions carefully.

2. The examination script consists of the followings:

Part Types of Instruction Duration

Questions
A 1 Essay Answer ALL 45 minutes
questions
B 5 Essays Answer THREE (3) 2 hours 15
questions ONLY minutes

THIS EXAMINATION SCRIPT CONTAINS 5 PAGES INCLUDING THE FRONT COVER

DO NOT OPEN THE EXAMINATION SCRIPT UNTIL FURTHER INSTRUCTION
CONFIDENTIAL

PART A
(25 marks)
Time : 45 minutes

INSTRUCTION
This part consists of ONE (1) COMPULSORY question. Answer THE question.

1. Sheldon is charged under Section 39B of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for
trafficking in large amount of drugs in Taman Indah, Kuala Lumpur. The
prosecution calls the following witnesses during the trial:
(i) Madam Amy, a foreign lady from Iraq saw the drug trafficking exchange
from Sheldon’s house into a black lorry. She saw few men carrying bundle
of white packs. However, she has a blurred vision due to cataract in her eyes
as well as deaf and mute person. She gives her statement to the court by
using sign language.
(ii) Penny, a nine-year old girl, who has seen Sheldon carrying small plastic
packages from his house into the car.Penny gives unsworn evidence.
(iii) Captain Wan, a fit retired army which his age is eighty five-year old is
Penny’s grandfather, who listen fromPenny willing to prove the identity of the
accused persons.
(iv) Howard Yakuza is the active helper of importing the drug smuggling process.
However, there is no evidencetender to prosecute him as a co-accused as
he sells fruits nearby and he is not at the crime scene. Thus, the prosecution
team subpoenas Howard Yakuza as prosecutor witness.
(v) Inspector Seth Tan, who is a police officer undercover duty (agent
provocateur) poses as drug cartel owner.
Discuss whether all parties are eligible to be credible witness in this case.
Support your answers with relevant authorities.

(25 marks)

LEGAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW 2/5

CONFIDENTIAL

PART B
(75 marks)
Time : 2 hours 15 minutes

INSTRUCTION
This part consists of FIVE (5) questions. Answer THREE (3) questions only.

1. Fara alleges that her auntie, Mariam has forged Fara’s mother’s signature
and has transferred the title to a piece of land into her name. Fara calls a
handwriting expert to support her allegation. The expert testifies that “My
experience shows that this signature is forged”.
The court agrees with the expert that the signature is indeed forged. Mariam
appeals to the Court of Appeal that the trial judge has erred in relying on the
expert opinion on the issue and has not addressed his mind as to corroboration.
Based on the case above, briefly explain the nature, legal principle and case
law on corroboration.

(25 marks)
2. Romeo and Julia, a married couple likes to travel from country to country.
However, travelling involve a high cost. Therefore, sometimes Julia pretended
to be a disabled person for the purpose of almsgiving and collecting donation
to bear their traveling cost. In some countries, she also persuaded some rich
men to sponsor her daily living cost in return of love and affection. Romeo
sometimes perform magic trick to raise funds.
One day, when they arrived to the border of Indonesia-Malaysia, they were
detained by local police on basis that they have committed cheating under
Section 420 of Penal Code and having same modus operandi. Both Romeo and
Julia denied the charge as they said they never get caught in other countries
and they have valid passports.
By referring to the relevant sections of the Evidence Act 1950 and leading
judicial authorities, advise Romeo and Julia on the admissibility of the similar
fact evidence and specific purpose approach tendered by their counsel.

(25 marks)

LEGAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW 3/5

CONFIDENTIAL

3.In the case of Anandagoda v R [1962] MLJ 289, it highlights that in order to
measure ‘whether a statement is an admission or a confession is by way of
conducting objective test’.
By referring to the case law, compare and contrast between admission and
confession under Evidence Law.
(25 marks)
4.One day, Maria Mariana who working as an emergency line telephone
operator testified that she had received a telephone call (three minutes before
the shooting), that a female voice answered, that it was hysterical and the
person was sobbing ‘Get me the police please, help me anyone please !!’.
Then, Maria Mariana was called as witness in the court to testify on what she
heard on that day. The Defence Counsel submitted to the court that the
statement that Maria heard is only merely hearsay and cannot be tender as
admissible evidence in court of law.
Based on the fact of the case abovementioned, discuss the nature of hearsay
evidence and exceptions to it, under the Evidence Act 1950. Support your
answer with reference to the relevant case laws and sections of the Evidence
Act 1950.
(25 marks)

LEGAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW 4/5

CONFIDENTIAL

5.Arjun, Pritam, Ah Loy and Abang, who were jet fighter trainee pilots were
seriously injured when the engine of their jet in which they were undergoing
training flight, suddenly seized, precipitating a crash landing.

After the crash landing, the Ministry of Defence held an inquiry to ascertain the
cause of the seizure of the jet and also for the consideration of the Ministry’s
legal advisors. The four injured trainee pilots sue the Ministry for negligence.
Their counsel intends to call the following persons as witnesses:
(a) The Secretary-General of the Ministry of Defence to produce the negotiation
documents and designs of the jet.
(b) The Ministry’s legal advisors to allow discovery and disclosure of the inquiry
reports on the accident.
(c) Major Rabu, and important member of the team responsible for the
negotiations and purchase of the jet, who expressed misgivings about the
safety feature of the jet to his team members who, nevertheless was overruled
by the other member of the team, Major Rabu was under an oath of secrecy
when conducting the negotiations for the purchase of the jet. The Major will be
asked to disclose the term of the negotiations.
(d) Rabiah, Major Rabu’s former wife, to testify that Major Rabu has told her
about his misgiving about the safety of the jet and his frustration of being
ignored by this members of the team on the matter.
(e) The Ministry refuses to give discovery on the grounds of public interest
immunity and professional legal privilege.
By reference to the Evidence Act 1950 and relevant cases consider whether
such evidence may be given or withheld. Advise Rajan’s counsel.
(25 marks)

END OF QUESTION

LEGAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW 5/5