Research Paper on The Evidence Act 1950: India's Influence on Malaysian Law

Introduction

The Evidence act a1950 is known to be the main source of the law of evidence in Malaysia. This act was model on bases of India Evidence Act which its origin was codified from the English law. In Malaysia, the evidence ordinance is similar to the Indian Evidence Act which is accepted to have been drafted by sir James Stephen in 1872 intending to codify forms of English law which relates evidence that stood during that time. The well-known Indian evidence act was originally accepted and passed by the British parliament in 1872. It contained a variety of rules set and matters of allies that govern the admissibility of any available and shortcoming evidence in the Indian courts of laws. The act rules of provides its purpose comprising of; regulation of judicial facts proceedings so that substantive law that was considered relevant could be applied to prove facts. It ensures justice is provided through a set of rules so that the cases presented are treated uniformly in a position where the rules of deemed evidence are concerned. It restricts investigation presented and made by the court within the limits provided by general conveniences. This meant that evidence was to be limited to material facts and no need of wasting valuable time discussing matters which are far away from evidence that would result in the multiplicity of issues. It further ensures convergence and tendering into the best evidence's fact possible. Moreover, it plays an important role in protecting the accused as well as the public and gives assurance of a fair trial. The standard of proof has developed and evolved with time since the law Act of 1950. It is fundamental for the judicial proceedings that may include both the standard of proof and also the burden of proof, especially in the case that may involve fraud allegations.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Standard of Proof

The standard of proof is described as the amount of evidence that is deemed necessary to provide proof of claim in the presented trial in a court of law. In the system of criminal justice, the burden of proof is set to lie within the government. Therefore, it is known to be the responsibility of the prosecutor to determine and proof the case with its element of charges in crime and not the defendant. On the other hand, it is the plaintiff that's is known to have the burden of proof in the civil cases. Standard of proof is ascertaining based case, wherein some cases it relates to event or occasion that already took place before the suspect is put in charges for the crimes conducted. These pretrial are considered important since evidence obtains as a result of the suspect violation of constitutional rights may be suppressed down, dissolved or even thrown out. There are different standards of proof due to different circumstances at hand for the prosecutor. These standards of proof include; proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the preponderance of the evidence as well as the clear and convincing evidence.

The Preponderance of the Evidence

This is referred to as the lowest standard of proof, and it is used mainly in the civil proceedings. This standard means that there is a high probability than not that the available facts are corresponding to the claims of engaged party. The plaintiff is obligated to bear the burden of proof in civil cases, such that all the legal elements in a given case is proven. The jury is responsible to weigh each piece of evidence, especially when deciding to rule on behalf of the defendant. Moreover, the jury instruction argues that the jury should use their judgment when determining the credibility of each piece of available evidence and weigh on its impact to determine ways of assigning each piece of evidence in the court of law. The case decision does not have to completely lean on one side. nevertheless, the burden needs that the provided evidence has to be strong enough so that fair judgment gravitates toward the deserved side. although the standard is majorly focused on civil cases, it can also be used in various aspects concerning criminal law. For instance, if the defendant is not comfortable and needs the court to conclude that he or she is not fit to make the stand of the trial in the court of law, the standard of proof is said to be a preponderance of the evidence.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

This standard precedes the preponderance of the evidence standard. This standard requires that the available evidence has a high probability that the alleged case has occurred. The standard can be applied in both civil cases and criminal cases. Some of the occasion the jury and the court of law uses this standard to determine if the search of the deemed case was voluntary.

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

It is a standard that focuses on the criminal prosecution. The prosecutor should convince and persuade the jury using proof beyond a reasonable of a crime case extensively before the jury decides to convict the defendant. Since in this situation individual freedom is on the line, there is a need for the highest form of standard of proof to be used and executed precisely. For instance, the Malaysia supreme court states that it worst to convict an innocent person and set free a guilty person.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not necessarily indicate that there can be absolutely no doubt on the defendant's guilt in the case. The jury usually starts by declaring that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The standard comprises two essential sections; the burden of production as well as the burden of persuasion. In the burden of production, the prosecutor is required to present and supply an adequate amount of evidence to prove a fact in a case issue. In the situation where the prosecutor failed to satisfy the requirement on the burden production, the judge in the court of law can direct the verdict. Whereas, burden persuasion needs the prosecutor to convince the jury of each element of evidence to prove the victim is guilty or innocent.

Legal Assistance

The issue of the burden of proof should be dealt with and explained extensively. It should also be extrapolated throughout trials concerning civic criminal prosecution. The lawyers to undertake the presented case in the court of law are selected before the jury in a process known as voir dire. This process is vital since it is used to determine any kind of potential biases that may likely happen and flesh out any prospective jurors who should not be on the jury. The plaintiff lawyer could then proceed to discuss the different standards of proof. The lawyer defending the criminal during a criminal case may explain the foundation bases of the standard of proof and the functionality that the standard may serve. The supporting bases of the standard include; protecting innocent people from conviction and putting prosecution at high standard during any jury proceedings. The defense format and strategy in the criminal case may be basically to point out that the prosecution in court may not be meant entirely its burden. In any particular type of case, the lawyer in charge may relate legal theory to the standard of proof to illustrate why a certain party may have or have not met the required burden of establishing the standard. A lawyer can go ahead and explain the information about the standard of proof to their clients so that they can understand and be aware of the process.

Malaysian Court Cases on Standard of Proof

Malaysian court uses the various court cases of the standard of proof in the court hearings which are used to deal with civil claims and criminal case. For instance, In the case of Veheng Global Traders Sdn Bhd v. Amgeneral Insurance Bhd & Anor And Another Appeal in regards to standard of proof.

Saminathan v. Public Prosecutor Case

The principle of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is based on the ordinary of beyond reasonable doubt as used in unlawful cases. The principle was adopted in the case Saminathan v. Public Prosecutor case (1981) where Lord Atkin stated that any fraud ranging from different kinds which are compared to changes of any other criminal offense and case, whether conducted in the criminal or civil proceeding must be established in a way beyond a reasonable doubt. Certainly, since then this principle has been applied in subsequent fraud cases, for example, the Chu Choon Moi v Ngan Siew Tin (1986) 1 MLJ 34 case as well as the Datuk Joginder Singh v Tara Rajaratnam (1986) 1 MLJ 105 case.

Additionally, in the Saminathan v. Public Prosecutor case, the judge made his ruling in accordance to the evidence rules as per the burden of proof in both criminal and civil cases. As per the defense in unlawful cases, the burden of proof is not considered higher like that of the trial and that in case the defense brings a reasonable doubt the accused is released. Reasonable doubt is proved based on common sense. Once the judge proves you committed the unlawful act as directed by the evidence, the judge becomes satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

Lee You Sin v Chong Ngo Khoon Case

The second case of Lee You Sin v Chong Ngo Khoon suggest that principle of "High Degree of Probability" was applicable in Malaysian rulings before the beyond reasonable doubt principle. It was considered "a very high degree" principle of the equilibrium of possibility. A statement by Raja Azlan Shah in 1974 read that, for a certain case of criminal activity to succeed in their preceding at the court of law, there should be a high degree of probability in the allegation on the victim. Furthermore, it is explained to be the wholesome rule of law where it determines by establishing allegation on the plaintiff based on the probabilities of a fraud allegation.

Besides its application in the Saminathan case, the "High Degree of Probability principle" was still applied in the Lee You Sin v Chong Ngo Khoon (1982) case. The civil claims' standard of proof was applied regardless of the accusation of fraud. In this case, the accusation of deceit was more severe. This, therefore, required a more intense degree of probability which later qualified to equalize the probability standards. Lee You Sin's case was under the condition of the more intense the accusation of fraud, the superior the degree of probability needed before the declaration of the satisfaction of the standard of proof against the probability balance.

In the case of Lee, You and Chong Khoon (1982), the court was in agreement with Lord Denning's statement, the case may be clarified and proven using the probability of preponderance, however, there is like to be a degree of probability concerning the standard of proof. It is alleged that the degree of probability much depends on the subject matter possibly fraud, criminal or civil matters. For instance, the civil court would probably require a high degree of case probability when considering or dealing with fraud-related charges. Opposed to when the requirement considers the establishment of negligence in case available in the jury. After Swaminathan, the federal court re-considered the former position. It imposed the need for a greater degree of probability for severe fraud accusations.

Ang Hiok Seng v Yim Yut Kiu Case

The case of Ang Hiok Seng v Yim Yut Kiu suggested that principle of "The Middle Ground". The principle was given in detail by Mohd Azmi FCJ. The cases concern the allegation that is related to fraud in the process of civil proceeding in the court of law, especially the one concerning criminal frauds of conspiracy to defraud allegation or misappropriation of money allocation or breach of trust in criminal related activities. The case settles that the burden of proof can be referred to as the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and not on the base of the used idea of the balance of probabilities. It reinforced the fact that the alle...