1.

Compare and contrast between expert opinion and non-expert opinion under the
Malaysian Evidence Act 1950. Support your answer with legal provisions and case
laws.
Ans: Witnesses may only give evidence of facts personally perceived and may not offer their
opinion as to the meaning of those facts. And the two exceptions of this basic rule are:
1. Expert Opinion –
 If a Registered Medical Practitioner possesses specialised knowledge, skill, or
experience, or sufficient experience or education to make him an authority on
the topic his testimony connects, then he is qualified to testify as an expert
witness.
 Such specialised information, expertise, training, experience, or education must
be prior to the witness being allowed to testify as an expert.
 It is possible to demonstrate the unique expertise, experience, training, or
education of an expert witness whatever acceptable proof, including his own
testimony, may be used.
 Any party in a court procedure or disciplinary investigation has the right to
retain an expert witness.
 The expert witness's responsibility is to support the deciding body in topics that
fall under his expertise.
 He must always act impartially and with knowledge. The expert witness
therefore has a duty to exercise independence and to conduct oneself with
integrity, objectivity, and impartiality.
 The expert witness is required to ensure that all written reports and evidence
are correct and not deceptive. This implies that the expert witness must make a
reasonable effort to confirm the veracity of the information provided and
include any pertinent data.
 Any time an expert witness's view changes, that change, or modifications should
be communicated right away to the court and the other participants in the case.
 Experts are the only witnesses called to give opinions.
 Experts’ witness is called an opinion as they are assembling facts and giving the
best opinion.
 We need expert opinions to prove important incidents of a case. They explain
things that we as ordinary humans are unable to understand.
 The opinions impose incredible amount of risk for prejudice.
 The risk is the evidence might be misused and distort the fact-finding process.
 Relevance of opinion is checked.
 It is important to see if the opinion given is needed by the trier of fact.
 The expert has to qualified before he/she can give opinion for the case.
 The opinion should be scientifically reliable.

2. Non - Expert Opinion –

 It must be a conclusion based on personal perception.
 Opinion is reasonable way of conveying the information, and jury needs it.
 Must be on a subject that is within the general competence of most people.
 Witness must be capable of giving the opinion.
 The non – experts need to only state the facts as the jury is the one to draw the
conclusions based on the evidence provided.
  Under the Evidence Act of 1950, non-experts are also permitted to provide their
opinion. Non-experts are those who the court may not consider to be qualified
professionals in certain fields. These areas are listed as follows:
- Section 47 allows for the verification of handwriting as legitimate if the
witness is familiar with the subject's handwriting.
- Section 48 - express an opinion regarding the existence of any prevailing
custom or right. A general right might be the ability of residents of a village
to access water from a certain well, for instance. As a result, only the
residents of particular places or districts would be aware of the various
rights or customs that apply there.
- Section 49 - giving an opinion on usages and tenets (a religious or
philosophical concept or belief), etc., is allowed.
- Section 50 - to express a viewpoint on a specific human relationship.

The court ruled in Dr. Shanmuganathan v. Periasamy that there is no law or rule of prudence
that has become a rule of law that says a handwriting expert's opinion evidence should never be
relied upon unless it is substantially corroborated. Instead, the court must weigh the facts and
circumstances of each individual case before coming to a decision.
As the court held in Mohamed Kassim bin Yatim v. PP, where it stated that it is established law
that evidence from a handwriting expert can never be conclusive evidence, it is well established
that the opinion of an expert should be taken with great caution and that the decision of the
court should not be based simply on the expert opinion without a substantial corroboration.
In Junaidi bin Abdullah v. PP, the court determined that the type of expertise required of an
expert under Section 45 would rely on the complexity and scientific rigour of the evidence that
was being used to support the claim. The court will be needed to inquire more thoroughly and
in-depth about the ascertainment of his qualification or expertise in the specific field of art,
trade, or profession the more scientific and complicated the subject matter.

2. Okoye alleged that her auntie, Ramonda has forged Okoye's mother's signature and
transferred the title of a piece of land into her name. Okoye 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. Ramonda
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 statement above, briefly explain the nature, legal principle, and case law on
corroboration.
Ans: Issue
1. Whether the trial judge has erred in relying on the expert opinion.
2. Whether the trial judge should have taken into account the probability of corroboration.
3. Whether the expert opinion is admissible.
Rule
1. Section 47 of the Evidence Act 1950 enables the witness to confirm the subject's
handwriting is legitimate if they are familiar with their subject's handwriting.
2. According to Section 45 of the Evidence Act of 1950, an expert is a person who
possesses specialised knowledge in a given field, such as foreign law, science or art,
handwriting, or finger impressions.
3. Section 73 of EA 1950 - Verification through comparison with other signatures, writings,
or seals.
4. S73 (1) states that a witness or the court may compare one signature, writing, or seal
with the one that is to be proved in order to determine whether it is that of the person
by whom it purports to have been written or made, even if that signature, writing, or
seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.
5. S73 (2) -The court may order any person in attendance to write any words or numbers
so that it can compare them to any words or numbers that are alleged to have been
written by that person.
6. As a general rule, section 134 of the Evidence Act 1950 states that no specific number of
witnesses are needed to prove a fact. This section highlights the maxim of “evidence is
weighed and not counted”.
Application
Without conducting any additional research, the court in this Ramonda and Okoye case
merely concurred with the expert. Since Okoye has the burden of proof because he hired the
handwriting expert, he has not provided the court with the expert's proof as required by
section 45 of the EA 1950. When comparing handwriting in a letter to a fake signature,
extreme caution should be used because our handwriting when signing letters differs from
that of, say, penning notes. In addition, as required by section 73(1) of the EA 1950, the
expert did not explicitly break down his analysis or display the object to which he had
compared the signature. Instead, he just offered an opinion based on his experience. In
order to strengthen Okoye's argument, the judge need to have demanded a breakdown of
how he came to that decision, as stated in section 73 (2) of the EA 1950. Despite the general
rule of corroboration, this makes it more open to improved evidence and/or corroboration
(section 134 of EA). Below are few cases supporting my point above:

- As the court held in Mohamed Kassim bin Yatim v. PP, where it stated that it
is established law that evidence from a handwriting expert can never be
conclusive evidence, it is well established that the opinion of an expert
should be taken with great caution and that the decision of the court should
not be based simply on the expert opinion without a substantial
corroboration.
- The court ruled in Dr. Shanmuganathan v. Periasamy that there is no law or
rule of prudence that has become a rule of law that says a handwriting
expert's opinion evidence should never be relied upon unless it is
substantially corroborated. Instead, the court must weigh the facts and
circumstances of each individual case before coming to a decision.
- "In a civil case and more so in a criminal case, the evidence of an expert on
handwriting unsupported by cogent evidence showing the process by which
he came to his conclusion is not worth the paper on which it is written is not
worth the paper it is written on," the court stated in UAB v. Tai Soon Heng
Construction Sdn Bhd. "Any reliance upon such evidence would, in our
judgement, constitute a serious misdirection warranting interference by an
appellate court."
Conclusion
I would draw the conclusion that the trial judge erred by relying solely on the expert's
testimony without considering any supporting evidence. He made no attempt to challenge
the expert's testimony in a cross-examination. He ought to have considered corroboration
because the case involved a forged signature, which could be challenging to evaluate.
Furthermore, rather than providing an explanation of something that us common folk would
not understand, the expert's view was more of a statement. The expert's testimony is
admissible in court, but the witness first has to convince the judge that he meets the
requirements of Section 45(1) of the Evidence Act of 1950 before he can testify as an expert
witness. The burden of proof is with the individual who calls such an expert witness, in this
case Okeye. To the satisfaction of the court, the expert witness will offer an opinion in the
field of his specialty in order to aid the court in reaching its own decision rather than
rendering it for the court. More evidence that the trial judge disregarded is required to back
up the advocate's argument.