Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(OPINION EVIDENCE)
PENGENALAN
• Pada amnya, saksi hanya boleh memberikan keterangan tentang fakta.
• Hanya mahkamah yang dibenarkan untuk memberikan pendapatnya tentang
suatu isu atau kes.
• Namun, prinsip am ini mempunyai pengecualian. Terdapat kategori saksi
yang dibenarkan untuk memberikan pendapat dalam hal keadaan tertentu.
• Seksyen 45 hingga 51 berkaitan pendapat orang ketiga.
KETERANGAN PAKAR
(EXPERTI EVIDENCE)
• Saad bin Mat Takraw: dua jenis pakar, iaitu pakar yang diwartakan dan
pakar di bawah Akta Keterangan 1950.
• Dalam Akta Keterangan 195), ada dua jenis iaitu pendapat pakar dan bukan
pakar
• Keterangan bukan pakar: S.47, S.48, S.49, S.50 dan S. 51
BEBERAPA PERKARA PENTING
TENTANG PAKAR
1. Maksud pakar
2. Peranan Pakar (bila pakar boleh dipanggil)
3. Kerelevanan Keterangan Pakar di bawah Akta Keterangan 1950
4. Kelayakan menjadi pakar
5. Percanggahan antara keterangan pakar
6. Nilai probatif keterangan pakar
WHO IS AN EXPERT?
• “Expert” means one who is skilled in any particular art or trade, profession
being professed of particular knowledge, concerning the same.
• If a person has acquired any special experience or special training in
particular subject to which the Court enquiry relates, such a person can be
considered as an expert.
• An expert is the one who has made the subject upon which he speaks, a
matter of particular study, practice or observation and he must have a special
knowledge of the subject.
• Any person who has the experience to give an informed opinion on a matter
outside the experience of Court is an expert.
WHO IS AN EXPERT?
• Lord Russell CJ in The Queen v Silverlock [1894] 2 QB 766, p. 771
stated that en expert is:
“someone who is skilled and has adequate knowledge in an area of
expertise.”
• Per Raja Azlan Shah CJ (Malaya) (as his Highness then was) in Wong
Swee Chin v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 212
“But, except on purely scientific issues, expert evidence is to be used
by the court for the purpose of assisting rather than compelling the
formulation of the ultimate judgements.”
WHEN AN EXPERT CAN BE CALLED?
• When the issue beyond the Common Knowledge and Experience of judge.
• When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or
of science or art, or as to identity or genuineness of handwriting or
finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially
skilled in that matter are relevant facts.
CATEGORIES OF EXPERT IN SECTION 45 OF
EVIDENCE ACT 1950
1. Foreign law
2. Science or art
3. Handwriting
4. Finger impression
1. Academic qualification
2. Experience
3. Training
• The court in PP v. Muhamed bin Sulaiman held that the expert may be competent either
by formal study or by experience meanwhile the court in Dato Mokhtar Hashim v.
PP held that one can acquire expert knowledge in a particular sphere through repeated
contact with it in the course of one’s work notwithstanding that the expertise is derived
from experience but not from a formal training.
• In Junaidi bin Abdullah v. PP, the court held that the specialty of the skill required of an
expert under Section 45 would depend on the scientific nature and complexity of the
evidence sought to be proved. The more scientific and complex the subject matter, the
more extensive and deeper will the court be required to enquire into the ascertainment of
his qualification or experience in the particular field of art, trade or profession.
PRESUMED TO BE COMPETENT
• In Junaidi bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor [1993] 3 MLJ 217,
Supreme Court (Mohamed Azmi SCJ) stated that:
“We were therefore of the opinion that since the evidence sought to be
proved by the prosecution was limited only to serviceability of an ordinary
revolver, Mr Cheong (PW6), a chemist in the chemistry department, was
competent to give expert evidence of such an uncomplicated matter. In the
circumstances of this case, the court was entitled to accept his position
as a government chemist as sufficient, without going into his
academic qualification or experience.”
CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINION
• The court has a right to prefer one opinion over the other.
CLR v Alagappa Chettiar [1971] 1 MLJ 43
Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim v PP [1983] 2 MLJ 232
Singapore Finance Ltd v Lim Kah Ngam [1984] 2 MLJ 202
PP v Ang Soon Huat [1991] 1 MLJ 1
Where there is a conflict, the court has a right to prefer one opinion to the other.
DOES THE COURT BOUND TO ACCEPT
EXPERT EVIDENCE?
• In the case of Kulasingam v. Thambipillai (1997)1 MLJ 288, Court of Appeal held that:
“Expert witness may give opinion evidence but the court is free to draw its own conclusions.”
• In Law Society of India v. Fertilizer and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. AIR 1994 Ker 308, p. 367, it
was held that:
“The court is not bound to follow blindly the opinion of the experts.”
PROBATIVE VALUE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE
“It is settled principle that while it is true that a Judge who sits alone is
entitled to weigh all the evidence, to put his own magnifying glass to
determine the probabilities so to speak and form his own opinion or
judgment, it would be erroneous for him to form a conclusion on a
matter which could only be properly concluded with the aid for
expert evidence.”
PROBATIVE VALUE OF EXPERT
EVIDENCE
• In the case of PP v. Samundee Devan Muthu Kerishnan [2006] 3 CLJ
161, p. 173, the court opined that it is trite law expert do not decide, the
ultimate decision with the judge.
• Dalam kes Ram Narain v State of UP AIR [1973] SC 2200, diputuskan bahawa:
Both under sec. 45 and sec. 47 the evidence is an opinion; in the former by a in scientific comparison and
in the latter on the basis of a familiarity resulting from frequent observation.”
• Oleh itu, elemen penting di bawah seksyen 47 Akta Keterangan 1950 untuk membentuk
sesuatu pendapat yang boleh diterima di mahkamah ialah “kenalan.” Dalam kes Lee Kim
Luang v Lee Shiah Yee [1988] 1 MLJ 193, mahkamah tidak menerima keterangan yang
diberikan oleh plaintif di bawah seksyen 47 Akta Keterangan 1950 kerana plaintif tidak
dapat membuktikan bahawa dia mengenali tulisan tangan si mati.
SEKSYEN 51 AKTA KETERANGAN 1950
• Di bawah seksyen 48 Akta Keterangan 1950, pendapat tentang kewujudan sesuatu adat
atau sesuatu hak umum boleh menjadi relevan di bawah undang-undang keterangan
Malaysia. Seksyen 48 juga menghuraikan “adat atau hak” sebagai sesuatu adat atau hak
sebilangan besar sesuatu golongan.
• Bagi menerima keterangan pendapat di bawah seksyen 48, pendapat tentang kewujudan
sesuatu hak atau adat yang bersifat umum mestilah daripada seseorang yang mempunyai
pengetahuan dalam perkara tersebut.
SEKSYEN 48 AKTA KETERANGAN 1950
• Kes Re Ko [1990] 1 MLJ 494 melibatkan pasangan suami isteri berbangsa Cina yang
berkahwin pada tahun 1976. Mereka mempunyai seorang anak hasil daripada perkahwinan
tersebut. Disebabkan hubungan antara suami isteri semakin renggang, si isteri telah
memohon cerai dan hak jagaan anak tunggalnya. Mahkamah telah mengambil pertimbangan
pendapat yang diberikan oleh Tan Sri Lee walaupun peguam bela pihak isteri telah
membantah kebolehterimaan keterangan pendapat daripada Tan Sri Lee kerana pendapat
beliau adalah dengar cakap sahaja. Dalam kes ini, mahkamah menerima pendapat yang
diberikan oleh Tan Sri Lee sebagai pendapat bukan pakar yang relevan di bawah seksyen 48.
•
Thank you!!!
DR. RAMALINGGAM RAJAMANICKAM
Faculty of Law
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)
43600 Bangi, Selangor
Emel: rama@ukm.edu.my
Tel. No.: 017-7157174