Primary and Secondary Evidence S3 of Evidence Act: Document: any matter expressed, described or howsoever represented, upon any

substance, material, thing or article including any matter embodied in a disc, tape, film, sound track or other devices whatsoever by means of: a) Letters, figures, marks, symbols, signals, signs, or other forms of expression, description or representation whatsoever. b) Any visual recording (whether of still or moving images) c) Any sound recording or any electronic, magnetic or mechanical or other recording whatsoever and howsoever made, or any sounds, electronic impulses or other data whatsoever. d) A recording, or transmission over a distance of any matter by any or any combination of the means mentioned in para (a),(b) or (c). *Mohd Ali bin Jaafar :Tape recording is documentary evidence, subject to: - tape was clean before record - machine work properly and not tampered or altered - the witness played the tape over after record and heard voices they can identify - a transcript was prepared of the voices - witness checked the recording with transcript to identify voices as the conversation *PP v Dato Seri Anwar: Conversations in the tape had been edited and tampered so it is not admissible. Primary Evidence S62 EA: the document itself produced for the inspection of the court. Where a document is executed in several part, each part is primary evi of the doc If counterpart, if the part is executed by one or some parties only, each part is primary Where a number of doc are all made by one uniform process (sekali gus)

*PP v Regnasamy: carbon copies are primary evidence * TSIA Development v Awang Dewa: typewritten carbon copies should not be admitted as original. Further, there is no evidence show that the sign has bee made by one uniform process.

* Allied Bank v Yau Tiok Hwa: typewritten carbon copies are secondary evidence and not made n the same uniform and sign separately. Secondary Evidence S63 EA: includes: 1. Certified copies 2. Copies made from the original by mechanical process y Lee Kok Nam : photocopy was undoubtedly secondary evidence 3. Copies made from or compared with the original y KPM Khidmat v Tey Kim Suie: summary of account made by Ah Lian from main account. The summary account was secondary evidence ; the main account was primary evidence. y Wong Choon Mei: doctor gave oral evidence of certain x-rays, which were lost. The witness giving oral account of the contents of the document should have seen the original and not copy. 4. Counterparts of doc as against the parties who did not execute them 5. Oral accounts of the content of a doc given by some person who has himself seen or heard it or perceived it by whatever means. y Dato Mohd v BBMB: seen= read Proving the Doc S61 EA: may be proved either primary or secondary S64 EA: doc must be proved by primary evidence except in cases hereinafter mentioned. y Alliedbank Yau Jiok Hua: maker must be called to prove a doc.(best evi rule)

S65 EA: exceptions to best evidence rules: When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession power of: i) ii) iii) The person against whom the doc is sought to proved Any person out of reach or not subject to the process of the court Any person legally bound to produce it

And when after the notice to produce has been served on such person. S65(1): when the original has been destroyed: y KPM Khidmat v Tey: the secondary evidence is non admissible until the nonproduction of the original is first accounted for

In Ng Hong Choon v Timbalan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri: where the document is public document, the best eveidence rule is inapplicable. In the case, secondary evi may be adduced not only as to the existence of such doc but also as to its contents.

Balance of Probabilities Generally in civil cases, plaintiff has the legal burden to prove the case on balance of probabilities while the defendant has the evidential burden to raise sufficient evidence. In Miller v Minister of Pensions: BoP is a probability which is not so high As required in a criminal case more probable than not but if the probabilities are equal, it is not dischages In certain situations, the legal burden of proof will shifted to the defendat: a) Proof of particular fact: S103 EA y Ku lip see s case: in proving alibi y Vasan singh b) Proving a fact within knowledge: S106 EA y PP v Lim Kwai Thean : accused has to prove that he is exempted person in the Emergency ordinace( by showing the IC) y Sundram v Arujunan: if defensant sought to blame a third party, they should plead it specifically and not merely deny negligence.