LAW OF EVIDENCE II (LAW578)

SEMESTER OCTOBER 2023 – FEBRUARY 2024

ASSIGNMENT (20%)

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This is a firm effort assignment.

2. Students must use Arial with the following font size:

a. Text: 11 points
b. Name of cases: 11 points, bold
c. Provisions in legislation: 11 points, bold

Other fonts are not acceptable.

3. The text in the paper should be typed in one and half spacing (1.5). All text must be
justified left and right.

4. Please provide footnotes for any reference to legal materials (e.g. books, article
journals etc). Full name of cases and its citations must be given at all time.

5. All assignment must be submitted together with a cover sheet with the following
information:

a. Name of the subject together with its code;

b. Prepared by: (name of the firm members together with student number and
tutorial group);
c. Prepared for: name of the tutor in full;
d. Date of submission.

6. Page number must be given at the bottom right of each page. Cover sheet should not
be counted for this purpose.

7. Maximum number of pages for the assignment is 20.

8. The assignment is due on 22 December 2023 (Friday). Please submit the printed copy
of the assignment to the Law Faculty Academic Office (Cempaka 3) before 5pm.

GOOD LUCK!
QUESTION 1
Maniam, aged 45 was charged for voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 322 of the
Penal Code. The victim was his daughter, Shanti, aged 14. The prosecution adduced several
witnesses to prove its case against Maniam.
The first prosecution witness is Shanti, the complainant. She was allowed to give sworn
testimony. She testified on the entire events. Her testimony are as follows:
“On the night of the incident, upon reaching home from a local bar at 12.45am, I confronted
my father about his behaviour. My father looked sober but his breath emitted strong smell of
liquor. Seeing his condition, I nagged at him for not helping me with the house chores, since
my mother just passed away. I also shouted, “You are a wastrel drunk.” Hearing this, my father
hit me with a vase and beat me repeatedly. He then left the house. With the help of my sister,
Saira and the neighbours, I made a police report. My father was arrested at a local bar nearby
on the same night. I was brought to the hospital by ASP Latto. My father is a fierce and grunted
man. He gets easily agitated and fights on trivial matters.”
The prosecution then proceeded to call Dr. Amrita to provide medical expert testimony
regarding the injuries sustained by Shanti. Dr. Amrita stated that Shanti was presented to her
with bruises and wound. Shanti exhibited contusions on the left arm and a laceration on the
forehead. Dr. Amrita further stated that these injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma,
and based on her examination, they were likely caused by an object with a hard, blunt surface,
such as a vase.
The prosecution then proceeded to call Dr. Azam, a medical assistant attached to the
government clinic in Rembau. Dr. Azam attended to Maniam’s medical examination which was
made upon his arrest. In his testimony, Dr. Azam stated that upon instruction of ASP Latto, he
had extracted Maniam’s blood and sent it for analysis to the General Hospital, Seremban.
The prosecution also called Dr. Lim, a pathologist of General Hospital, Seremban who
prepared a report on Maniam’s blood sample. The report stated that the blood alcohol
concentration level (BAC) of the sample sent to him for analysis was .60. This means that
about 6% of the bloodstream of the person from whom the blood was extracted contained
alcohol. The report concluded that Maniam was drunk but nonetheless sober.
Shanti’s sister, Saira, aged 8 was also called as prosecution witness. She was allowed by the
court to give evidence without oath. No preliminary examination was conducted by the trial
judge to determine Saira’s competency. In her testimony, she stated that on the night in
question, she was awakened by a loud noise coming from the ground floor of the house. She
slowly went downstairs where she saw her father hit Shanti. She tried to restrain her father
but was pushed aside. The defence elected not to cross-examine Saira as a form of protest
to the trial judge for failure to conduct preliminary examination before allowing Saira to give
evidence in court.
The prosecution ends its case by calling Appu, Maniam’s best friend. Appu testified that he
came to the house to help Maniam disposed the vase. Maniam called him at about 1.00 am.
Appu stated that he picked the shattered vase and throws it away in the nearby river.
The prosecution closed its case and the trial judge called Maniam to enter defence.
The defence contended that Maniam suffered from Brunner syndrome, and this has affected
his mind when the offence was committed. The defence called Dr. Malik as expert on Brunner
Syndrome. Dr. Malik is a leading psychologist attached at the General Hospital, Kuala Lumpur.
He has 20 years’ experience in dealing with patients of various disease of the mind, and had
published commendable articles on this subject in leading psychologist journals. Dr. Malik’s
statement before the court was as follows:
“The story of the Brunner syndrome gene dates back to early 1990’s, when several non-
governmental groups reported a link between violent aggression and a gene on the X
chromosome that encodes for enzyme called monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), which regulates
the function of the neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin. After a study conducted
on Maniam’s father and siblings, I noticed that the male members of the family were extremely
violent. Maniam has nine siblings, six of them are male. Of all the male siblings, two were
arsonists, one ran over his employer with a car, another raped a school girl and the other one
stab the warden of a mental hospital with a fork. Upon further investigation, I found that all the
male siblings including Maniam, lacked MAOA, suggesting that they possess a defective
version of the MAOA gene. They are prone to react in aggressive manner when confronted.
From these findings, I found that Maniam’s reaction during the event was involuntary.”
The defence also argued that Shanti’s evidence carries low weight on the ground that it was
not materially corroborated.
At the close of the defence case, the prosecution applied for leave to adduce evidence in
rebuttal. The prosecution called Siti, a clerk of Rosbi Darly & Associates to adduce a video
recording of Maniam and the defence counsel, Tuan Rosbi. In the video, Maniam stated that
he was devastated with his wife’s death and when confronted by Shanti on the day of the
event, he needed to “teach a lesson” to Shanti to be a responsible girl.
The trial judge accepted the video recording and was not impressed with the evidence given
by Dr. Malik. The trial judge convicted Maniam and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment.
Maniam appealed.
Assuming that you are Maniam’s counsel, write a submission of appeal in support of the
defence case. Focus your appeal on the issue of competency, compellability, privilege and
corroboration.
(100 marks)