DUTY OF PROSECUTION TO OFFER WITNESS TO THE DEFENCE: ROSLI YUSOF v PP [2021] 7 CLJ 681

-


A person’s right to defend himself against a criminal charge includes the right to obtain and adduce other evidence in support of his defence. 

Material Facts

Rosli Yusof, the appellant in this case was charged for trafficking in dangerous drugs under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

The appellant was arrested inside a Toyota Avanza filled with rice gunny sacks containing packed cannabis. He contended that he had no knowledge of the drugs in the car as the car was driven by Kamarul Hisham, who had full control of the car.

Kamarul Hisham was among 4 other arrestees who had been arrested and investigated after the arrest of the appellant.  These arrestees were not charged. They also were not called by the prosecution as the witnesses in this case and were not offered as witnesses to the defence.

The learned trial judge found that the prosecution has successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt as the defence failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) DDA 1952. Rosli Yusof was convicted for the offence and sentenced to death. 

His appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful.

Issue

Whether prosecution has a duty to make available to the defence any witness whose evidence may assist the accused in his or her defence. 

Decision

Federal Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence under section 39B(1)(a) DDA 1952. The charge is reduced to possession under section 6 and punishable under section 39A(2) DDA 1952. 

Federal Court’s Judgment

Mohd Zawawi Salleh FCJ delivered the judgment:

Duty to call credible and relevant witness

The prosecution has the discretion to call all credible witnesses whose evidence is essential to fully presenting the narrative of the case. This failure for the prosecution to make available these witnesses to defence is a denial of the appellant's right to a fair trial and deprive his opportunity to present his case in the best manner. 

However, this discretion is subject to two limitations:-
  1. Discretion must be exercised with fairness and in good faith; and
  2. The witnesses who had been investigated by the police and from whom the statements have been recorded must be offered to the defence.
High Court and Court of Appeal erred when placed the burden on the appellant to call the material witnesses to establish his defence. It is trite that it is not the duty of the appellant to prove his innocence or to call a particular witness to support his defence. The law places upon the prosecution the burden to prove guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and not on the appellant to prove his innocence.

Kamarul Hisham who had been arrested for investigation should be called as a witness in the prosecution stage or be offered to the defence as the discretion of the prosecution is subject to the limitations above.






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

APA ITU 'KAWAD CAM' ?

-
Image
  1. Apa itu 'kawad cam'? Pengecaman yang dijalankan untuk menguji samada saksi mata dapat mengenal pasti tertuduh.  2. Apakah peruntukan undang-undang yang membenarkan ujian kawad cam ? Ujian kawad cam diterima sebagai bukti di bawah seksyen 9 Akta Keterangan 1950 .  3. Apakah prosedur untuk menjalankan ujian kawad cam ? Tiada undang-undang bertulis yang menerangkan prosedur untuk menjalankan kawad cam. Walaubagaimanapun, Hakim Vernon Ong dalam kes Pendakwa Raya lwn Joachim Selvanathan [2009] MLJU 748 telah merumuskan prosedur untuk menjalankan kawad cam seperti berikut:- Semua orang yang berada di kawad cam hendaklah terdiri daripada kumpulan etnik yang sama & kategori kehidupan yang sama dengan suspek; Jurang umur antara mereka tidak sepatutnya terlalu berbeza; Mereka yang berada di barisan kawad cam tidak semestinya mempunyai ciri-ciri yang sama; Kawad cam hendaklah dijalankan secepat mungkin; Kawad cam yang berasingan hendaklah dijalankan sekiranya melibatkan 2 ...
Read more

CASE SUMMARY: TENGKU ADNAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2021]

-
Image
  Material Facts The appellant was a Minister in the Federal Cabinet and the secretary-general of UMNO. He was also the controlling shareholder of Tadmansori Holding Sdn Bhd.  In 2013, project "Perumahan Mampu Milik Wilayah Persekutuan" was launched and the appellant requested Tan Sri Chai Kim Kong (SP19), director of Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd to participate in the project. During the course of the project, the appellant had requested a political donation from SP19 around RM 5 Million to RM 6 Million to be used for 2 upcoming elections. However, SP19 had contributed the political donation to Tadmansori around RM 2 Million, instead of UMNO upon request by the appellant.  Tengku Adnan was then charged under section 165 of the Penal Code  The High Court Decision Tengku Adnan was sentenced to 12 months' jail and fined RM 2 Million after he was found guilty. The High Court held that all 4 elements under section 165 of the Penal Code have been proved by prosecution beyond reaso...
Read more

Selamat Datang

-
 Assalamualaikum dan selamat datang. Saya Amer Haiqal, pelajar tahun akhir LLB UniSZA. Tujuan utama saya wujudkan blog ini adalah untuk berkongsi ilmu dan pendapat saya mengenai isu semasa dan pengetahuan yang saya perolehi. Ilham untuk mewujudkan blog ini datang daripada Tuan guru saya, Tuan Ariff Azami atau lebih dikenali sebagai Loyar Berjurus. Saya menyahut cadangannya untuk mula menulis. Segala ilmu dan pendapat yang saya kongsikan adalah dalam dwibahasa dan saya akan menggunakan bahasa yang mudah untuk difahami oleh pembaca. Terima kasih dan doakan saya sentiasa istiqamah untuk menulis. Jumpa lagi dalam perkongsian saya yang pertama.
Read more