Chapter 2.2 - Burden & Standard of Proof: Criminal Cases

Question 1

BURDEN & STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES

Overview

Answer 1

1) Burden of proof
2) Standard of proof
3) Meaning of BRD
4) Meaning of RD
5) Duty of judges
6) Exception - proving particular facts under S.103
7) Exception - statutory defence under S.105
8) Exception - proving facts specially within knowledge S.106

Question 2

BURDEN & STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES

Burden of proof

Answer 2

1) On whom:

Woolmington v DPP;
Balachandran v PP;
Mohamad Radhi Yaakob v PP

• lies on prosecution throughout the trial.
  2) Falsity of defence - Mohamad Radhi Yaakob v PP:
• ref. PP v Saimin: falsity of defence does not relieve the prosecution from its case BRD.
• ref. Mat v PP: even if the judge does not believe the accused defence, he must go one step further & consider if it raises a reasonable doubt.

Question 3

BURDEN & STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES

standard of proof

Answer 3

PP v Yuvaraj:

• prosecution has the burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Question 4

BURDEN & STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES

meaning of BRD

Answer 4

Miller v Minister of Pensions:

• It need not reach certainty, but a very high degree of probability.
• Prosecution needs to adduce evidence that is so strong against a person that leaves only a remote possibility in his favour.

Question 5

BURDEN & STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES

meaning of RD

Answer 5

1) PP v Saimin:

• doubt which makes on hesitates as to the correctness of the conclusion that one reaches;
• doubt which is so solemn & substantial as to produce the mind of jurors some uncertainty as to the verdict to be given;
• Must arises from the evidence or want of evidence.
• Cannot be imaginary doubt or conjecture unrelated to evidence.

2) Ali Tan Abdullah v PP:

• mere denial / bare story of innocence = cannot amount to reasonable doubt;
• evidence must be considered in totality.

3) PP v Datuk Haji Harun Idris:
- reasonable doubt cannot be fanciful or imaginary doubt.

Question 6

BURDEN & STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES

Duty of judge

Answer 6

Mat v PP:

• Satisfied BRD - convict;
• Accept or believe accused’s explanation - acquit;
• Do not accept or believe accused’s explanation - do not convict but consider whether PP has proven its case BRD & whether accused’s explanation has raised reasonable doubt.

Question 7

EXCEPTION - PROVING PARTICULAR FACTS UNDER S.103

Alibi

Answer 7

1) The law:

• Illustration (b), S.103 EA
• S.402A CPC

2) Relevancy of alibi:
- Illustration (a), S.11 EA
3) Application - Duis Akim & Ors v PP
1) What is alibi:

• defence that precludes the possibility of the accused being present at the place of crime;
• at or about time of the commission of the offence.

2) Burden of proving alibi:

• once an accused pleads alibi, he does not assume the burden to prove it is true;
• burden is on prosecution to prove by evidence that alibi is false;
• evidence of prosecution must place the accused squarely at the scene of crime.

3) Standard of proof:
- alibi needs only raise a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime.
4) Whether needs corroboration:
- no.

Question 8

EXCEPTION - PROVING STATUTORY DEFENCES UNDER S.105

general principles

Answer 8

1) Standard of proof - Murugapillai a/l Rengasamy v PP:

• The accused relies on the defence of intoxication.
• The accused has the burden to prove the defence on a balance of probabilities.

2) Two types of defences - R v Chanderasekara:
- defence that affects prosecution case, i.e. defence of accident affecting mens rea = success in proving the defence will prove that P has failed to prove necessary ingredients of commission of the offence.
- defence that helps prosecution case, i.e. defence of provocation proving actus reus = success in proving the defence will accedes the prosecution case. failure to prove defence leads to the defence being rejected.
3) Failure to prove defence - R v Chanderasekara:
- in any case, failure to prove defence does not relieve PP from proving its case BRD.

Question 9

EXCEPTION - PROVING STATUTORY DEFENCES UNDER S.105

examples of defence

Answer 9

1) provocation - Ikau Anak Mail v PP:
- the accused has the burden to prove his defence of provocation on the balance of probabilities.

See: PP v Sah Chin Hong (CA, 2018) - RFJ

2) insanity - PP v Kenneth Fook Mun Lee (No. 1):

• the burden to establish insanity was on the accused;
• no obligation on PP to adduce evidence that accused was sane.

However, PP v Aldwin Rojas Saz [2019] 1 LNS 806 (CA):

• An accused need not be called to enter his defence merely to discharge his burden of proof for insanity;
• This is so if both the prosecution and the defence do not dispute that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the offence.

3) automatism - Abdul Razak bin Dalek v PP:

• automatism is covered by the defence of insanity;
• same principles apply.

Question 10

EXCEPTION - PROVING FACTS SPECIALLY WITHIN KNOWLEDGE UNDER S.106

Meaning of specially

Answer 10

PP v Lim Kwai Thean:

• it is an easy matter for the person;
• which the proof by the opposing party would present him with inordinate difficulties.

Question 11

EXCEPTION - PROVING FACTS SPECIALLY WITHIN KNOWLEDGE UNDER S.106

example - dispelling dishonesty

Answer 11

Mary Ng v R:

• the accused was charged for cheating, which its ingredient is deceit.
• it is therefore not for the accused to prove that she is acting honestly;
• it is for the PP to prove that the accused has acted deceitfully.