Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5
STUDENT ID NO MULTIMEDIA rt UNIVERSITY | MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY FINAL EXAMINATION TRIMESTER 2, 2017/2018 ULV4622 -LAW OF EVIDENCE II (All Sections / Groups) 9 March 2018 :9.00am —9.15am (15 Minutes) 15am — 12.15 pm (3 Hours) INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENT: i Students will have fifteen minutes during which they may read the paper and make rough notes ONLY in their question paper. Students then have the remaining THREE HOURS in which to answer the questions 2. This Question paper consists of 4 pages with 5 Questions only. 3. Answer any FOUR questions. All questions carry equal marks and the distribution of the marks for each question is given. 4. Students are allowed to bring into the Examination Hall only a CLEAN and ORIGINAL copy of the: EVIDENCE ACT 1950 EVIDENCE OF CHILD WITNESS ACT 2007; and . CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE Students are not allowed to lend or borrow statute(s) during the Examination, 5. Please write all your answers in the Answer Booklet provided Ly 4622 LAW OF EVIDENCE tt 9 March 2018 QUESTION 1 “ [T]he desirability for corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case (which in any event has not yet crystallized into something approaching a rule of law and which is still a rule of practice and of prudence) springs not from the nature of the witness but from the nature of the offence. Never has it been suggested that the evidence ofa woman as such invariably calls for corroboration. If a woman says her handbag has been snatched and if she is believed there can be no question of a conviction on such evidence being open to attack for want of corroboration. If, however, she complains of having been raped then both prudence and practice demand that her evidence should be corroborated... [T]he temptations of a woman to exaggerate an act of sexual connection are well known and manifold... {I[t is to be remembered, however, that the reported cases where the prosecutrix is a young girl afford little assistance for in such cases corroboration is necessary not only by reason of the nature of the offence but by reason of the prosecutrix being a child whose evidence as such calls for corroboration in relation to any offence.” (Per Thomson, LP in Din v. Public Prosecutor [1964] MLJ 300, FC), Critically evaluate the above statement based on the changes to the law of evidence introduced under Section 18 of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, (Total: 25 marks) QUESTION 2 “Stephen elaborated [that similar fact evidence] is one of the ‘four great exclusive rules of evidence’, to which he acknowledged only two exceptions, namely, those set out in ss 14 and 15. He did not accommodate the possibility that similar facts might be probative of the actus of a crime in addition to it's mental element. It would therefore be contrary to the draftsman's intention to construe s 11(b) as admitting facts that Stephen never considered appropriate for admission...f1] do not think it appropriate to sustain an artificial distinction between similar facts which are probative of intention (or other states of mind) and similar facts which are probative of acts done by the accused, nor do I consider such a distinction to have been intended by Parliament.” (Per Yong Pung How CJ in Lee Kwang Peng v Public Prosecutor And Another Appeal [1997] 3 SLR 278) Critically evaluate the above statement in the context of similar fact evidence in Malaysia and the interpretation of section 11(b) of the Evidence Act 1950. (Total: 25 marks) Continued... Mas We UL sen LAW OF EVIDENCE it 9 March 2018 QUESTION 3 Geela has been charged with two counts of sexual assault under section 15 of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 and s 354 of the Penal Code. He is alleged to have committed the assaults respectively on 10 October 2017 and 17 October 2017 at the Bukit Beruang Community Centre. Geela was employed es a taekwondo instructor at the Community Centre and the charges arise from the allegations made by two male complainants who were in his class. JZ (PW1), aged 10 is the first complainant. He alleges that on 10 October 2017, Geela instructed him to stay back after the taekwondo class for a one to one “extra special training”. JZ claims that Geela had inappropriately touched him during the training and wamed him not to tell anyone. XY (PW2), aged 11 is the second complainant. XY alleges that Geela had sexually assaulted him during an “informal training session” on 17 October 2017, Geela denies the allegations made against him, Geela claims that the two boys are making up stories against him to get him into trouble after he had caught them smoking outside the Community Centre. The prosecution proposes to have both charges heard in a joint trial and wishes to call both JZ and XY as its main witnesses. JZ, is reluctant to testify as he fears facing Geela in court. The prosecution also proposes to adduce evidence that Geela has a previous charge for sexual assault on a child in 2001 which resulted in an acquittal and a pomography website was found bookmarked on his laptop. Advise the prosecution on the evidential issues. (Total: 25 marks) QUESTION 4 Sam and Pam ("the plaintiffs") are the executors of the estate of one Mr. Samy ("the deceased"). The deceased was the registered owner of a property known as Lot 534 held uncer GM186, Mukim 11, Daerah Barat Daya, Bayan Lepas, Pulau Pinang ("the land") When the plaintiffs carried out a land search they discovered that the land had been transferred to Jon (‘the defendant”) a property developer, who is now the registered owner. Jon claims that the deceased had transferred the land to him pursuant to an Sgreement between them dated 1 August 2016 (3 months before Mr. Samy’s death). Continued... MS or