Tutorial week 5 Question 2 Presented by: 1) Azizah ahmad (a125801) 2) LIM Lin Lee

BURDEN OF PROOF (BOP)

1) Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Perwaja Steel (Low Hop Bing J at pg 676-677) under 101(1) EA he whom asserts existence of facts must prove those facts exist.. 2) Woodroffe & Ammer Alis law of evidence: The phrase BOP has two meanings, namely the burden of establishing a case (legal burden) and the burden of introducing/adducing evidence (evidential burden) 3) Aziz Muhamad Din v PP (Augustine Paul JC at pg 497-498) the burden establishing a case rests throughout the trial on the party who asserts the affirmative. The burden of introducing evidence in a case shifts constantly as evidence is introduced by one side or another

QUANTUM OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES

Miller v Minister of Pension (Lord Denning)

that degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond shadow of doubtin civil cases it must carry a reasonable degree of probability but not so high as is required in a criminal case.

Mohamed Radhi bin Yaakob v PP (Mohamed Azmi SCJ)

It is a well-established that the general burden of proof lies throughout the trial on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he is charged. There is no similar burden placed on the accused to prove his innocence. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. To earn an acquittal, his duty is merely to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case

 Mohamed Radhi bin Yaakob v PP [1991] 3 MLJ 169

Meaning of beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) is at least 85 % of the elements are proven. Meaning of Raising reasonable doubt is able to weaken the prosecutions case by casting a doubt as to the ingredients of the charge.

 Mat v PP (Suffian J)
court should go one step further before convicting the accused by giving due consideration as to why the defence story, though could not be believed, did not raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Thus, even though a judge does not accept or believe the accused's explanation, the accused must not be convicted until the court is satisfied for sufficient reason that such explanation does not cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case

PP v Yuvaraj (Privy Council Lord Diplock)

no onus lies upon a defendant in criminal proceedings to prove or disprove any fact: it is sufficient for his acquittal if any of the facts which if they existed would constititute the offence with which he is charged are "not proved

QUANTUM OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES