ASAS UNDANG-UNDANG

KETERANGAN
 KLASIFIKASI UNDANG-UNDANG
KETERANGAN

1. ADAKAH UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN UNDANG-

UNDANG SUBSTANTIF? ATAU

2. ADAKAH UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN UNDANG-

UNDANG PROSEDUR ATAU ADJEKTIF?
KENAPA UNDANG-UNDANG
KETERANGAN PENTING ?
 RUJUKAN KEPADA BIDANG KUASA LAIN??

• EVIDENCE ACT IS A COMPLETE CODE ON THE SUBJECT – CAN

WE REFER TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS?

• COMMON LAW & INDIA?

 MAHOMED SYEDOL ARIFFIN V. YEO OOI GARK
[1916] 2 A.C. 575

• ...THEVIEW OF THEIR LORDSHIPS IS THAT THE RULE AND

PRINCIPLE OF THE COLONY MUST BE ACCEPTED AS IT IS
FOUND IN ITS OWN EVIDENCE ORDINANCE, AND THAT THE
ACCEPTANCE OF A RULE OR PRINCIPLE ADOPTED IN OR
DERIVED FROM ENGLISH LAW IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IF THEREBY
THE TRUE AND ACTUAL MEANING OF THE STATUTE UNDER
CONSTRUCTION BE VARIED OR DENIED EFFECT.
MEELAMCHAN AND ANOR V PP (1962) MLJ 213,
215

• A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS, OF COURSE,

NOT IN ANY WAY BINDING ON THIS COURT. WHEN, HOWEVER,
IT RELATES TO THE INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTORY
PROVISION WHICH IS THE SAME IN INDIA AND IN THIS
COUNTRY SUCH A JUDGMENT IS ENTITLED TO THE VERY
HIGHEST DEGREE OF RESPECT.
 PEMAKAIAN AKTA KETERANGAN 1950

Seksyen 2

Affidavit & Arbitration

Prosiding Kehakiman (tidak terpakai)

•Queen v Gholam Ismail

•Section 2 of Criminal Procedure Code
 Seksyen 3

Definitions
MAKSUD KETERANGAN
(MEANING OF EVIDENCE)
 KURUP V. PENDAKWA RAYA [1934] MLJ
17
• HAKIM MUDIE DI MAHKAMAH RAYUAN PADA HLM. 19 TELAH
MENYATAKAN BAHAWA:

“THE DEFINITION OF ‘EVIDENCE’ AND ‘COURT’ IN SECTION 3 OF

THE EVIDENCE ORDINANCE SHOWS THAT EVIDENCE IS THE
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES IN A COURT OR BEFORE A PERSON
LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO TAKE EVIDENCE.”
 PENDAKWA RAYA V SANASSI [1970] 2
MLJ 198
• PADA
HLM. 200-201, HAKIM SHARMA DI MAHKAMAH TINGGI
DENGAN RINGKAS DAN TERANG MENYATAKAN BAHAWA:

“IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE ‘EVIDENCE’ AS DEFINED IN

SECTION 3 OF THE EVIDENCE ORDINANCE AN ORAL
STATEMENT MADE TO THE COURT HAS TO BE BY A ‘WITNESS’. A
WITNESS CAN ONLY GIVE EVIDENCE FROM THE WITNESS BOX
AND NOT FROM THE DOCK OR ELSEWHERE.”
 ABDA AIRFREIGHT SDN BHD V SISTEM PENERBANGAN
MALAYSIA BHD [2001] 8 CLJ 1

• PADA HLM. 38, HAKIM TELAH MERUJUK KES PENDAKWA RAYA V

SANASSI DAN KES KURUP V PENDAKWA RAYA DALAM
MEMUTUSKAN BAHAWA KETERANGAN LISAN YANG TIDAK
DISOKONG DENGAN KETERANGAN DOKUMENTAR MASIH
SIGNIFIKAN BAGI SESUATU KES KERANA KETERANGAN BOLEH
DIBERIKAN OLEH SAKSI.
 ISTILAH LAIN
1. DOKUMEN
2. FAKTA
3. FAKTA PERSOALAN
4. RELEVAN
5. KOMPUTER
 PROOF (PEMBUKTIAN)

•PROVED (TERBUKTI)
•DIPROVED (TERBUKTI SEBALIKNYA)
•NOT PROVED (TIDAK TERBUKTI)
 Types of Evidence

Oral Documentary Real Direct Circumstantial Hearsay

 MAKSUD???

• DIRECT EVIDENCE
• CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
• HEARSAY EVIDENCE
• REAL EVIDENCE
 JUDICIAL EVIDENCE
(KETERANGAN KEHAKIMAN)

•APA MAKSUD KETERANGAN KEHAKIMAN?

•APAKAH JENIS-JENIS KETERANGAN
KEHAKIMAN?
 Presumptions
(Seksyen 4)

Law Fact

Rebuttable Irrebuttable Section 114 & 114A

[S.4 (2)] [S.4 (3)] [S.4 (1)]
 FAKTA DALAM ISU (FAKTA PERSOALAN)
(FACTS IN ISSUE)
MEANS THE DISPUTED FACTS OR THE FACTS WHICH NEED
TO BE PROVED.

SECTION 3 OF EA 1950

JENAYAH: ACTUS REUS DAN MENS REA

SIVIL: IT IS IDENTIFIABLE FROM THE PLEADINGS.

 THE CONCEPT OF RELEVANCY
(KONSEP KERELEVANAN)
SECTION 5 OF EA 1950

SECTION 5 TO SECTION 55 OF THE EA 1950

PP V DATO’ SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM (NO: 3) [1999] 2 MLJ 1:

 PP V. HAJI KASSIM [1971] 2 MLJ 115 (FEDERAL COURT):

• WHATEVER IS LOGICALLY PROBATIVE IS NOT NECESSARILY ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE

UNLESS IT IS DECLARED SO UNDER THE ACT.
 THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
•WHAT IS TBER?
•DIRECT EVIDENCE VS. INDIRECT
EVIDENCE??
•DOCUMENT – WHAT IS TBER?
ANY QUESTION?