Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Tutorial 3 Qs

    Uploaded by

    Ammar Mustaqim
    Section 101 of the Evidence Act relates to the burden of proof in criminal cases. The defendant only needs to introduce some evidence to create reasonable doubt, not prove their defense absolutely. For the murder case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Bunuh caused Matio's death. Bunuh's defense that Matio attacked him first could create reasonable doubt, shifting the evidential burden to the prosecution to disprove it. In the civil case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the bus company's negligence caused Mr. S's death. The company's defense will not be enough on its own and it bears an evidential burden to introduce some evidence to support its

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tutorial 3 Qs

    Uploaded by

    Ammar Mustaqim
    49 views1 page
    Section 101 of the Evidence Act relates to the burden of proof in criminal cases. The defendant only needs to introduce some evidence to create reasonable doubt, not prove their defense absolutely. For the murder case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Bunuh caused Matio's death. Bunuh's defense that Matio attacked him first could create reasonable doubt, shifting the evidential burden to the prosecution to disprove it. In the civil case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the bus company's negligence caused Mr. S's death. The company's defense will not be enough on its own and it bears an evidential burden to introduce some evidence to support its

    Original Title

    342794_Tutorial 3 Qs.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Section 101 of the Evidence Act relates to the burden of proof in criminal cases. The defendant only needs to introduce some evidence to create reasonable doubt, not prove their defense absolutely. For the murder case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Bunuh caused Matio's death. Bunuh's defense that Matio attacked him first could create reasonable doubt, shifting the evidential burden to the prosecution to disprove it. In the civil case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the bus company's negligence caused Mr. S's death. The company's defense will not be enough on its own and it bears an evidential burden to introduce some evidence to support its

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    49 views1 page

    Tutorial 3 Qs

    Uploaded by

    Ammar Mustaqim
    Section 101 of the Evidence Act relates to the burden of proof in criminal cases. The defendant only needs to introduce some evidence to create reasonable doubt, not prove their defense absolutely. For the murder case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Bunuh caused Matio's death. Bunuh's defense that Matio attacked him first could create reasonable doubt, shifting the evidential burden to the prosecution to disprove it. In the civil case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the bus company's negligence caused Mr. S's death. The company's defense will not be enough on its own and it bears an evidential burden to introduce some evidence to support its

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LAW OF EVIDENCE I

    TUTORIAL 3

    1. Explain the application of s.101 EVIDENCE ACT in relation to criminal cases.

    2. “….defences such as alibi placed merely an evidential burden of introducing some


    evidence enough to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury”
    Discuss.

    3. Bunuh is charged with the murder of Matio. This offence is alleged to have taken place
    at “Unpure Bar” in Bangsar, Kula Lumpur on 1.4.2009. Mabuk who is a bartender in
    Unpure Bar will testify for the prosecution that Bunuh and Matio were sitting next to
    each other when Bunuh suddenly punched Matio .Matio then fell over and hit his head
    against the floor and died almost instantly.

    Bunuh however argues that it was Matio who had attacked him first and that he had only
    punched Matio in retaliation .Cantik, who is a waitress in unpure bar, is willing to testify
    that she saw Matio punch Bunuh first before Bunuh had retaliated.

    Bunuh claims that he had no intention to cause any serious harm to Matio and that the
    whole incident was a terrible accident.

    Advise the parties on the burden and standard of proof.

    4. Mrs. S is suing the Laju Bus Co for damages resulting from the death of her husband
    Mr.S, who died in an accident while he was travelling on the company’s bus to Penang
    on a holiday. Laju Bus Co argues that it is not liable as Mr.S has refused to follow clear
    instructions that all passengers must remain seated when the bus is moving and had
    insisted on dancing while the bus was moving.

    Advise the parties on the burden and standard of proof.

    You might also like