SUMMARY TRIAL

THE PROCEEDINGS
Brought before the
court

Charge is read and

Prima facie case
explained

Submission at close of
prosecution case (Defence Plea is taken
and Prosecution)

Examining the witness Prosecution Stage

 What is a Crime ?

■ “A socially harmful act or omission that breaches the values protected

by a state. It is an event prohibited by law, one which can be followed
by prosecution in criminal proceedings and, thereafter, by punishment
on conviction”.

■ The Concept of Crime in International Criminal Law . Iryna Marchuk

 Flow of Criminal Matter.
1. The Crime.
2. The Arrest. (S15)
1.How arrest is affected
3. Remand. (S117)
1.Conditions for remand.
4. The charge. ( S152-S154)
1.Charge
5. Bail. (S387-S388)
1.Conditions for Bail.
6. Pre Trial.
7. Exchange of Documents. (51A)
8. Alibi (402A)
9. Plea Bargaining (172C)
■ Trial – Prosecution Case. (S180)
– Standard to prove ? 
■ Decision at end of Prosecution Case. (S182A)

■ Trial – Defense Case.

– Accused Options
■ Keep Quiet
■ Give Statement
■ Statement from the dock.

■ Decision.
– Mitigation.
– Stay.
S180 - Procedure after
conclusion of case for
prosecution
■ (1) When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider
whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused.
■ (2) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case
against the accused, the Court shall record an order of acquittal.
■ (3) If the Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out against the
accused on the offence charged the Court shall call upon the accused to enter
on his defence.
■ (4) For the purpose of this section, a prima facie case is made out against the
accused where the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each
ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a
conviction.
  Mat v. PP [1963] 29 MLJ 263
■ he appellant charged with theft of two chickens and alternatively with dishonestly retaining stolen property namely one
chicken gave evidence and called witnesses in his defence at the end of which he was convicted because in the words of
the learned Magistrate "On the whole I am unable to believe the defence." I agree with Inche Christie, Counsel for the
appellant, that the learned Magistrate has seriously misdirected himself as to the meaning of the burden of proof by the
accused in eases where it is necessary for him to rebut the prosecution case against him.

■ The correct law for Magistrates to apply is as follows. If you accept the explanation given by or on behalf of the accused,
you must of course acquit. But this does not entitle you to convict if you do not believe that explanation, for he is still
entitled to an acquittal if it raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, as the onus of proving his guilt lies
throughout on the prosecution. If upon the whole evidence you are left in a real state of doubt, the prosecution has failed to
satisfy the onus of proof which lies upon it.

■ The position may be conveniently stated as follows:

■ (a) If you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt
■ ........ Convict.
■ (b) If you accept or believe the accused's
■ explanation.. Acquit.
■ (c) If you do not accept or believe the accused's
■ explanation.. Do not
■ convict but consider
■ the next steps below.
■ (d) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation and that explanation does not raise in your mind a reasonable
doubt as to his guilt........ Convict
■ (e) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation but nevertheless it raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as
to his guilt.. Acquit
 Case study
PP v. ABDUL RAHMAN MAHIDDIN
MAGISTRATE COURT, SHAH ALAM

■ Charge:
■ "Bahawa kamu pada 22/09/2016 jam lebih kurang 9.00 pagi bertempat
di perkarangan IPD Seksyen 9 Shah Alam di dalam daerah Petaling di
dalam negeri Selangor dengan niat curang telah menyimpan harta curi
iaitu seutas jam tangan jenama Aquaracer no siri RRL2045 milik Amal
bin Adul Aziz KPT: 840117145003 yang dilaporkan hilang di rumah No 9
Jalan Magnesium 7/106C Seksyen 7 Shah Alam bersabit Sek. 6 Rpt
7592/16 dengan mengetahui atau ada sebab mempercayai bahawa
harta tersebut adalah harta curi. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah
melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh di hukum di bawah Seksyen 411
Kanun Keseksaan"
■ [4] At the close of the Prosecution case, the court has carefully perused the evidence adduced by
the prosecution through its five witnesses and examined the evidence in support of the case.
Section 173(h)(iii) and Section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code set out the procedure to be
followed at the conclusion of the prosecution's case;

■ Section 180. Procedure after conclusion of case for prosecution

■ (1) When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the
prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused.

■ (2) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against the
accused, the Court shall record an order of acquittal.

■ (3) If the Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused, the Court
shall call upon the accused to enter his defence.

■ (4) For the purpose of this section, a prima facie case is made out against the accused where the
prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if
unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction.
■ [5] What is a prima facie case has been clearly spelt out in the Court of Appeal case of
Looi Kow Chai & Anor v. PP [2003] 1 CLJ and the case of Looi Kow Chai & Anor was
referred to in the Federal Court cases of Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85; [2005] 2
MLJ 316 and Ahmad Najib bin Aris v. PP [2009] 2 CLJ 800also the more recent Federal
Court Case of Magendran Mohan v. PP [2011] 1 CLJ 805 where it was stated that;

■ a) In deciding whether a prima facie case has been established under the new section
180 of CPC, a maximum evaluation of all the evidence adduced by the prosecution
must be done and a prima facie case is one that is sufficient for the accused to
answer, and the evidence adduced must be such that it can only be surmounted by
evidence in rebuttal.

■ b) If the evidence is unrebutted, and the accused remains silent, he must be

convicted. Therefore, the test to be applied at the end of prosecution's case is
whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the accused if he chooses to remain
silent, which if the answer is affirmative, means that prima facie has been made out.

■ c) Whenever the accused has chosen to remain silent, there is no necessity to re-
evaluate the evidence to determine whether there is a reasonable doubt in the
absence of any further evidence.