Object -

,ol- ir',2..,),,,,,. 1:A(..i: 't.t I lr

FR.ESLh,f,}TIONS

Related to standard & Eurden ofproofTo faciiitate fhe burden of proof in relafionto certain facts. i ;-r ^ i. .:,,.t * ,: ,; ) .; ei *;

i '_ - -:,:) l':c:,jt':-: ., a-: !-{3 i'1r/ ':) !/t.:r' t --r'- ! i r A

It is recopized by'iar,l' that specific assunlptiolts nsed to be 5 C

made as amzltet of common sense or policy. ^ ! / i

Example - Dangerous D*g, A"f"""t' 1 ia '' s a 1 r)- Com-iption Act

DDP52

'.,t-itznrl 8o;

L ( tf4 lf a I

i',Jil icLft}:

* i''{ *i'{ i i' i: r'

,niPi r '' i,r t'r

"t .i. r ig -' .-"' .'' '

i i:i' ', i- 1 fri

| \/t {.' t; .'1,i-'- |ti

,r ili:: f

. r,:. i,- f .:,:.

(t. r ..

!:,.-J.

- i-l'...r

-! \t (.(a

! e n., .,'!

nO{!'. -. I f

Fresumrrtion with Basic Facts

Presunoption operates only if Basic Facts Proven.

-PP v Ooi Seng Huat - Chong \,lin Tat J

once basic fact established matter of lau'Infergnce Drarm.

lJg Kim Huat * Thomson CJ

Ilno b?sic facts qstablishedpl.gi?t^1"rp,ti9l icrr r ui;bJ.-r F i"*ir's f3,"+{J I lllP.:- ,{ dr,:;ii,,,!r,,:,,rn"

1,1, p,:::.r;{. ;.

Example:- Drug eases:-Prdsumptidn of f)rug'trafficking. .' 31 ( A aBasic fact- Prosecution need to establish that accused was fnund inpossession ofthe specified amount/u-eight ofscheduled drus oncepresu$ption involved - Accused would have legal burden ta r€tlutpresumption on a balance ofprobabiliS .

Yuvarai v FP-19692MLJ 89\\&ere invoking the presumption of comrption. Lord Diplock stated "Theburden ofrebutling such presumption is on the accused on a Baiance ofprobabiliry"'.

PF r,'h4cbarmed lVaor.Iantar 1957 MI-.I 180Accused burden to rebut can be discharged by evidence ofthe prosecution'n"itnesses & as ivell as defence rvitnesses.

Woo Chir Cheng v Public Prgsecutar tr256 IvIIJ tr3$Ifprezumption raised against accused & prasecution has evidence to retrut -prosecution must adduce that ef idence.

The law generally does not permit an Inference or a presumption to tre ba-sedupon another presumption ie Double presumption

Dangerous Drugs Act bas its oun presumprion-Prosecution rvoulel rel5' on presir:irpfian of posses-sion i+ invoke presumpiionnf trsfEckin o

ft{chd Radhi hin Yaakob v PF 1991 3 MI-J 169.trfaccused {biled to rebut possession does not meaft he fai}ed to rebuttraffrcking.

Mqhd Ft4ssE&L FF X952 Mtr J 5For purposes of trafficiiing there can be na presumption \a'ithin a

presumprion-

Note S104 & Act- I3urden cf prcving fact to Lre proved to make evidenceavailable.

Fresurnption witlrout Basic faqfs( false nresumntion'!

- Fresumption operatesautomatically

Example

- Fresumpticn of Innosence

j-

Types of Presumption

Retruttable Presurnption af LawM(2) E Actlfhenever it is dkected by this Act thatthe ccurt shall presume a fact, it shallregard the fact as proved un,less and untilit is pM. d . i';,: , t,i

I

\\&en one fact is declared by this Act to beconclusive proofofanother. the corut sha[on proofofthe one fact, regard the other asproved, and shall not ailow er,idence to begiven for th€ purpos€ of disprcving it.

S4(3) E Act

Sl 13 E AcrIt shall be an irrebuttable presumptionofiaw t}at a boy under the age afthirteen,vears i.e incapable oicommitting rape.

S107Act-S112E Act

dve.ri

t* i:*tjt:t i+: - :-,:-,

i'::.",i.i.';''i2,..:*iis:,,.t 1r{ :.i J"- : r,t 1.. :.'€

-] , [,J!ai;.cfo!4

: f illr";i;-: i: i f":lf

P.resumptian sf FactsS4(1) E ActSlhenever it is provided by this Actthat the court may presume a fact, itmay either regard the fact as provedunless and until it is disproved, or rnaycall forproofofit

Presumption relating toDocuments

S79 E Act -S89 E Act

Types ofPresumption to Documents Presumption v;hich aregeneral nature.

S8B E Act5114 E ActThe court rnaypresrme tlre existenceof any fact u,hich itthinks likel.v to havehappened, regardbeing had to thecommon course ofnatural events, humanconduct, and publicand public and privatebusiness, in the#relation to the facts ofthe particular

S27 E Act\\'ten any fact is deposedto as discovered in con-sequence of, informationreceived from a personaccused ofany offence inthe custody of a poiiceofficer, so much of thatinformation, whether theinformation anrounts to aconfessior or not, as relatesdistinctly fo t}e faetthereby discovered may beproved.

3133 E ActAn accomplice shallbe a competentwitness against anaccused person; anda eonviction is notillegal rnerelybecause it proceedsupon theunccrroboratedtestimony of anaccomplice.

S1l4(c ) sl i4(d) S1i4(e) sl14(f) sli4(hi

I S86 E Act

j sr r+ta;

I liusi{tt li':n' t

The iliuskationsto S114 of the EA are not exhaustivePP v Krishne Ra.o A/L Gururnurtki&crs 2SS$ I h{L"I274.

,.+l'r'tr- ' i-.' :',' j, '

II

CT la r f : a! C., :

Fresr+rnFticn of FactsS4(i) E Act\\4renever it is prcvided b5r this Act that the court maypresume a fact, it may eitlrer regard the fact as proved unlessand until it is disprovd or ma]'call for procf of it

Presumption s'hich aregeneral natflr€.

386 E ActThe court may presumethat any documentpurpo*ing to be acertified copyofanyjudicial record ofa*ycountry not being a partof the Cornmonweakh is

genuine and accurate ifthe document purports tobe ce*ified in anymanner which iscertified b-v anyrepresentative oftheYang di-Pernran Ag+ngin or for zuch country tobe the mannerconrrnonly in use in thatc$ilntry for thecertification of copies ofjrrdicial records.

Sl 14 E ActThe court may presume freexistence ofany fact rnhich itthinks likely to have happened,regard being had to thecolfirlon course of naturalevents, huiaan canduct. andpublic and public and privatebusiness, in therr relation to thefacts of the particular.

S27 E ActWhen any fact is deposedto as discovered in con-

, sequ€nce of informationreceived &om a personaccused of any'offence inthe custody of a policeofficer, so mueh of thatinformation, whether theinforrnation amormts to acoufession or not, as relatesdistinctl-v to the factthereby disccvered may beprcved.S87 E Act

The court mali presumethat any bock to v*rich itmay refer fcr in{ormationon matters of pubiic orgeneral rnterest, and thataqr pubiished map or chart

S90 E Act\4rhere any document purporting or proved to betq'enty years oid is produced from anl,custodyu'hich the court in the particuiar case ccnsiderspr*per, the court mey pr€surne that the signatureand every o*rer part of that document whichpurpo$s to be in the handwriting of any parricuiarpersotr is in that person's handv'riting, and in thecase document executed or attested, that it wasduliy executed and aftested.Cemn*issiocer of Ftrunicipalitv of l\{alaeea r,.

sinn;ah.-Record of service of, an employer of theconrmissioner of the Municipalit-v of lr4alacca"Held-Presumption could be made of suchdocunients tvas in relation to its geniuness and notthe truth ofthe contents-Ghazal! bin Ariffin y Ahmad bin Eahar.l99? 1MI,J 2S2.Documents in quesfion was a sale and pw*Fraseagreemenf ofhaving regard tc Sg0 E Act nra1,presrrme the geuuiness of signature of the purportedvendor and pwchaser and the thumb print of thepurported person n'ho witness tbe execution of theagr€emeilt.

S88 E ActThe court may presunre that amessage foni,arded from ate{egraph office to be person towhom it purporfs to beaddressed corresponds with a

nessage deliveredf,ortransmission at the offce &omvririch the Bessage purports tobe sent; but the court shail notmake any presumption as to theas to the perssn by u'hcm the

.-,^^ J^t:,,^-^J Cilressage \4as oeirver€c iorfiansmission.

L'.j, 1,.:n :- 1,; 1'

.".i.:';;'!

a. !:-a,r ia iF f-i'^;'':

*x {r;S'a':-,'..', -11

Sl33 E ActAn accomplice shallbe a competentwitness against anaccused person; anda conviction is notilleeal mereiybecause it proceedsupon theuncorroboratedtestimony of anaccomniice.

Fresumption of Facts

Fresurnption relatiagto Documentss86 -Se0 E {ct

Sl 14 EActThe court may preswnethe exisGnce cf any factu'hich it thinks likely tohave happened, regardbeing had to the commoncourse of natural events,human conduct andpublic and pubiic andprivate business, in theirrelation to fhe facts ofthe particular.

527 E Actllrhen any fact is deposed to asdiscor"ered in con-sequence ofinformation received from aperson accused ofany cffencein the custody ofa policeoffrcer, so much of thatinformation, vl&ether theiniornaation amounts to aconfession or not, as relatesdistinctly to the fact therebydiscovered may be prcved.

Sl33 EActAn accomplice shallbe a competentq'itness against anaccused person; anda conviction is notillegal merelybecause it proceedsupon theuncorroboratedtestimony of anaccomplice.

5114(b) thatanaccomplice isunwofthy ofcredit unlesshe is

corroboratedin materialparticulars.

Sl la(c )That a bill ofexchangeaccepted orendorsed wasaccepted orendorsed forgoodconsideratioa.

3114(d) that a thr::g orstate cf ihings u'hichhas besn shor+n to bein existence within aperiod shorter thanthat within which suchthings or states cfthings usually eease toexist is stiil icexistence.

S I 1 4/c\th:t

iudicial andofficial actshave beenregularlyperformed.

Sl l4(fi tharthe commoncourse ofbusiness hasbeenfollorqed inparticular

S1i4(h) that if a man refi:ses toans\rrer a question n'itictrr he is notconrpelled to anss:er Lry law, theanswer if given would beunfavourabie to him

S114(i) that when a dccument creatingan obiigation is in the hands of theobiigor the obligation has treendischarged.

S1 l4{a}Possessionof stolen good soonafter the theft is ,-iil*c* the thief or hasreceived the goodsktou.ing fhem to bestolen, unless he canaccouat for bispossession.

PP v Heng Ah Huat.

Sl la(g) that er.idence whichcould be and is not producedwould if produced lreunfavorable to the perscnrnho withhoids it.Loo Keck Leong v PP

S I 1 4{s)Tivo Prereouisites

51 14ft) Agst Proseeution Sl 1a(g) Agst Accr:sed Q1 14loi Cirril c+"-o"' , '\5/

Sufficient eviCence

S11a(g) that evidence u'hich could be and isnot produced rryculd if produced beunfavorabtre to the person q'ho rvithholds it.

Pf V f'Jarla i{tt6a{ *o',"t t',rt/, s ,2,;-/ :7j

( fr{r*' 9"-!"n !r,"tit'i,-

"*- j

Jl/

l,l o ftz),to'rr?< fon Fs'{q'rn { e ol vzvu t^'

04 tiu ,7!E:s6e-*j;''u*i #{ ;;e-r s*r"':i

r:.f- '-*ilt*-,f ;-4 [t*rer'rPl

Two Prerequisites

Evidence held must be mderial to the caseMunusamy v FF 1948 MLJ 57 a typist rvasnot cailed to explain some clerical error inaddressing exhibits.Held-since not material rvitness 511a{g)not invoked.PP v Dato Seri Ann'ar ltrrahim defleilcearguedthat u'ilnesses not called including prirneminister.I{etd-Sl14.(g) not invoked not materialwitnessPPv Chia Lecng Foo 2000 4CLJ 649Failure to cal; the x'itness did not make theprosecution faii in establishing Prima FacieHox'ever failure to call the inithness rvouldresult in prosecution failing to prove BRDs39E BDA 1952.F acfs-Accused was riding motorc.vcle(Accused orvn rnotorcycle with a pillion rider.(Yee).u'hen accused saw police officers heaccelerated & was seen taking a trag fromcarrier & throwing it rvay.Thereafter accused icst control & knockedinto road divider.Accused & Yee feli downand N.as arrested issue u,hether Yee materialr,itness who ought to be cailed byprosecution.Held by Augustine Paul J- to establish primafacie,police have led sufticient evidence so

failure to call Yee not fatal but to establishtsRD - faiiure to call Yee fatai .

Celmtrast-PF v LetchrrEr3&$an ?0S$ 4 CI.J 6S5Accused rvas riding nrotorcl's{s ft !nthe basket carrier there ras a plastic bagcontaining heroin.Motorc;,cie belonged toone b.v tire name of,Ganesan.Ganesan not called as aq,itness-Faitrure to call Ganesan as a u,itness rryas fataland the accused rl.as acquitted rvithout callingfor defence.

Withoiding rnust.be deliberate and notmerely on a account of failure to obtainsuch evidence.Adel Mnhd Et Dabbah v A G of palestine1944 AC 155.Held presumption of Adverse Inference shouldnot be involied unless it rvas shown that theprosecutor had an oblique motive.1\furugan v Lew Chu Ckeng 1980 2 MIJ 139Defendant driver of a rnotorcar.He failed to calla lady passenger to testify.He said that he does no know her addressFIeId- since defendanthas given explanationand w,as not challenged.No adverse inference.

S11a@) that evidence rvhicit could be and is notproduced ivould if produced tre unf*r'orable to theperson rn'iro r'.'ithholds it.

Against the AccusedAgainstf€ Prosecution

Prosecutcrial *iscretion

Prosecution has

discretion *'hether ornot to caii a wihress

Abduliah Zawawi vPF 1985 2 MIJThe prosecution'sright not to call a withness

must always be guided bY

the duty to discharge the

onus ofproof.Teoh F[ee ChYe v PP X-987

1CLJ 471

Rerninderby AbdulHamid CJ-Regardsless ofprosecutarial discretion it isthe duty ofprosecution to Prcve the

case BRI).

Necessarytoestablish rvirat kindofburden accusedbears.Goh AhYew v PP 1949 h{LJ150.Accused had todischarge evidentialburden nopresumption ofadverse trnference.

Illian v PP 1988 I}{u42l.Evideutalburdsn to prove alibino presumption ofAdverse Infbrence.BahoromvPP tr960

MLJ 299.kgaiburden to provedefence of insanitypresumption maybe invoked.

Suffteient Evidence

Prosecution mustconsider rEhether theY

already harre sufficientevidence to supPort itso$'n case without cailingthe particularvi'itness.l{amasiyiarn vFr) 198? 2 MLJ 336h,Iere fact thatprosecution had failedto pro'Juee an informerinsuffcient to raise

S11a{gi.Prosecutionevidence overs'heirnin g,

Offer to Defenee It is good pw$+for the

prosecution to offer the witness to the defence,

but even ifthe5' do so it does not guarantee the

presumprion of Adverse trnference cannot be

invoked against them Ji Chuee Hiarlg v PP

19952 MLJ 433. PF v Dato Seri Anqrar

Ibrahim 1999 2h'ILJ.Slia(g) not raised aliho

certahr rn'itnesses not produced like Prime

Ministen & Former IGP.

Statutcry Protecticn

F{ave to distinguisir betrnzeen

informer & ageni.pSoyacateur PP v

@ Chee Kin 1995 2I{LJ679 difference between tq'o lies inthe degree of participation.Infonners have sfafutory Protection"Agent Frovocateurs-No Pro iections40(1) BEA, S53 AC.A iq'{ ryEe Boon Keat- failure to caLl agentproriocateur led to the prosecutionfailing to prove its case

BR.}"

Civil Cases

General Rule it shouldnot he invoked againstdefendant since hedoes not have theburden.Setrr'aduray vehinniah1939 MLJ 253.However in-Chan Yohe v Facific&crient insur*nce &SatukAb'dutlahHishan v SharmaKunari ShuklaSlXa{g} raised againstdefenee-

-l(Lioo CL,a1rq t2':Cj

j tf

frcpfi .,ro *-,

{'J d Yt'

4; -i'e."!'agei':{ff,

""; n ta it f{to'"n'--tn t::r : * i

i :.'Y i:)': l'. =),re>.,,"C tt -

/2,;rrf,;i r ) -L'

r !'',,,.,

i. .i, t'' .7) 5".,: ' ,l ,:i: .!'"E;{ ts ,3;.' :-d''{ ' e} i

Rebuttable Presumptian of LarvS4(2) E Act "Whenever it is directed by tiris Act thatfhe ccsrt shall presurue a lacl it shall regard the fuctas proved unless and until it is disproved.

Boeurnents.S79:Fresurnption as to genuinessof ce*ified copies.S80:presnmption in reiation todocuments produced as record ofevidence- Noliana bintisnlaairnan vPP 20(}1 1 CLJ36Confession recorded underS115 CPC is presurned tc bevoluntaril)' madeGopinathan Sutlraamaniam vr.Timbalan Menteri Balarnnegeri 20S0 1 MLJ 65-Thepresumption ma5r fos rebuted bydefence.S8l-Fresumption cf genuiness cfdosuments purporting to begazettes, n en'spapaer, etcFP v Dato Seri -Anwarfbrahim-Production cfne\\.spapaer report is not proof ofthe truth af its ccntents-S82-presumption in relation todocuments admissible in Englandrryiflrcut proof of seal or signature.S83-presumption that maps orpians purporling to be by thecourt of h4ala1'sia anlr state rnrere

so made are accurate.S84-Presumption of genuiness ofeollection of iaws and reports ofdecisions.S85-Prssumption that e'verydocurnent purporting to be apower cf attornry- has been duiyexecuted & authenticated.S89-Fresumption that every,doculnent called for and notproduced rvas attested, stampedand executed in the rnannerrequired by larv.

S 1O8-presurnption of deathit is pror,ed that a man hasnot been,heard of for 7years by those who'u'ouldnaturail5' haye heard of himif he had been alive -burden of proving alive ison perso{r who affinn it.Mutku thambiv Janaki.Janaki married,husbandwas jailed, after releaseabscond to India.Janakirvent through ceremony ofm arri age.J anaki askin gmaintanence arguedmqnioe rrnirl l.cccrrce

married to 1$ husband.Janaki-relied on S108.Held- Fresurnpticn notraised because Janaki not ingood term withhusband-$'tro thcse *'horvould naturaliy....)Re Gun Socn Thin-JapaaeseDuring Japaneseoccupation Gun rn'as

captured. Friends andrelatives searched & couldnot find him.Sons rel;,ing on SnSB

Held- Presumptionraised{Held sons thcse wlroq'ould naturalty.-..)Re Osnran BaehitNo presumption as to timeof death.S1S8 is Broviso to S1CI7

S1$7 is presurnption of trife

S1O9-presumptionof relationship if ithas been shou'n that{perscn) have beenacting as (parturers ,

land lord & tenan!or principal &agent) the burden ofproving that they donot stand to eachother in thoserelationships, is orperson.

sL07-

nrresurrptionof k{e it isshown that amart ntas alivervithin 30 yearsburden ofproving thatire is death isonpermnaffirnting it

511CI-presumption ofoivnership.The burden ofprovrng that {anyperson{ is not theo\4rner of an3,thingof q,hich he is slrorryn

to be in possession)ison the perscn n'hoaffimts that he is notthe o*"ner"Fendakm'a ra-lra vTan SriMuharnrnad binh{uhamrnad Taib-a registeredproprietor ispresumed to be inpossession of iandunless the contrary ispror,ed.

S111-presunrption of bad faith. rn tror'';s/7'li''r5 vthc{e cnQ ;or}",f,mche l{sriaft v Shaik AIIie bln Ornar. Aeed & iiliterate ,*oman {o/l o

executed a gifi of propery, io nephern, ulio-nranage all lrer nysvrr-r,. "';'Burden on nephew to prove that the gift nas spontaneous & {,r,i ,

independent rl,iil-Ffeld*\,oman acted on her own fiee rl'ill.I{ete S111 -the burden of proving the good faith of the transaetion ison ttre party *'ho is in positior"l of active c,rnfidence.

(7n ".

$.I

lllvei''t-trJrli. Ct '/

t.i

.. -. _. l*

t!\-.

AA .T AI "t I Lt f-r

a" Lti

$ 6-)'1 ni

.F

b*'f **t

tq t'ni,,'.l

14 i.q + .4 V

^ l', ) Mar r i cr.3e t^'-j: {k't

9 tt7 t tuj :/, '" " '-' i .g"it (\ {'.- i"

I

;''.risf-i! rFEFt'i-

{'$'t { 'd t

'lzh * t

rfzltnt+M'or r ,:5* i{r' ii':' i'.J P*'*'

/. * . +-. !,ay'r+ / t y'

jJ

tJ P* ;, ri . f t;. {'/"{ .i € l' fi\rrr_f ; t Y -

iitlj .r. ,-, , r,,,1 y,l{-', * 1{, ,'Jl*J:l're-!-"r'' f.'"' j

J

-;nt i- '!'' to. ; :-r t""t';'i : : { i

' f t t i / /j " ^, A y.,t a_f:q L{i, ; t I {, f*Xr(vld Ta h'r'

,A,i i d:*u,"n

17,Ltfh,i^, Ltfi ilo*s\'

-!1{: rttl o ,f $'"s:.ri" t,j !.\rl-

a"," ''f *{{ i4!t'

i r.tf fi, tr.tn.i;, (hif d 3 t!'

ris j? r;i.;tt

fi'F- x .,r'

tl''

ri.{r}i* \

, I t ;+'" i."r i- ..^ ,, ,t'c" t' i: r: 'i t* 4; '

j t i ': t:'P'ttr:',r;\tf)!:; t n Ji.n,u ' -.' '' .l : ,sr trr,t l"'r *"i yr;+'i':{-"i

l(' Ls,i "='

+u t\'t i"il"ir'l f" ':r:'"€ he { Y

- iI -

*, f i E--{ g 'ti tlr"-'f" f i t'" :''r o'.f

*; ,,",,,.e*;"? E"i '-f 'q I

1.U