Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PP V Lin Lian Chen

    Uploaded by

    Cold Durian
    117 views1 page
    A government chemist was called by the prosecution to identify a substance as heroin. The prosecution provided evidence of the chemist's qualifications including 13 years of experience, a science degree in chemistry, and a diploma in blood serology. However, the High Court ruled the prosecution failed to establish the chemist as an expert witness under section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950 because they did not provide evidence that he had experience analyzing dangerous drugs like heroin, had given past testimony in court on drug analysis, or that his evidence had been accepted by courts. The High Court determined more evidence was needed to prove he had the necessary qualifications beyond just being a government chemist.

    Original Description:

    PP v Lin Lian Chen

    Original Title

    PP v Lin Lian Chen

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    A government chemist was called by the prosecution to identify a substance as heroin. The prosecution provided evidence of the chemist's qualifications including 13 years of experience, a science degree in chemistry, and a diploma in blood serology. However, the High Court ruled the prosecution failed to establish the chemist as an expert witness under section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950 because they did not provide evidence that he had experience analyzing dangerous drugs like heroin, had given past testimony in court on drug analysis, or that his evidence had been accepted by courts. The High Court determined more evidence was needed to prove he had the necessary qualifications beyond just being a government chemist.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    117 views1 page

    PP V Lin Lian Chen

    Uploaded by

    Cold Durian
    A government chemist was called by the prosecution to identify a substance as heroin. The prosecution provided evidence of the chemist's qualifications including 13 years of experience, a science degree in chemistry, and a diploma in blood serology. However, the High Court ruled the prosecution failed to establish the chemist as an expert witness under section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950 because they did not provide evidence that he had experience analyzing dangerous drugs like heroin, had given past testimony in court on drug analysis, or that his evidence had been accepted by courts. The High Court determined more evidence was needed to prove he had the necessary qualifications beyond just being a government chemist.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    In Lin Lian Chen [1990], a government chemist (Mr Primulapathi Jaya) was called by the prosecution to

    show that the subject matter in question was heroin. To show that Mr Jaya was an expert, evidence was
    led by the P that Mr Jaya:-

     had been with the chemist department for 13 years.


     had a science degree majoring in chemistry;
     had a diploma in blood serology.

    The High Court held the P had failed to establish the qualification of Mr Jaya which formed the basis for
    admissibility of his evidence under s. 45 EA 1950 as no evid was led by the P that Mr Jaya:

     had the necessary experience or expertise in the analysis of dangerous drugs in particular
    heroin;
     had given evidence in court on the analysis of drugs;
     his evid had been accepted by the court.

    The High Court held the mere fact that Mr Jaya was a gov chemist with 13 years experience does not
    automatically qualify him as an expert on drug analysis. Affirmative evid must be adduced by the P to
    prove that he had the necessary qualification.

    You might also like