Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 132 views

    Topic: Disclosure in A Criminal Proceeding

    Uploaded by

    Lee Jun Zhe
    Teguh is entitled to inspect and obtain copies of documents seized by the police that are stated in the charge against him. Under Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution must provide the accused copies of such documents before trial. However, Teguh is not automatically entitled to copies of expert reports, like the document examiner's report, unless it is determined to be relevant evidence. While Teguh can apply to the court for other documents under Section 51, the court's discretion is limited before trial starts and documents must be shown to be necessary for preparing his defense.

    Copyright:

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

    Topic: Disclosure in A Criminal Proceeding

    Uploaded by

    Lee Jun Zhe
    132 views15 pages
    Teguh is entitled to inspect and obtain copies of documents seized by the police that are stated in the charge against him. Under Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution must provide the accused copies of such documents before trial. However, Teguh is not automatically entitled to copies of expert reports, like the document examiner's report, unless it is determined to be relevant evidence. While Teguh can apply to the court for other documents under Section 51, the court's discretion is limited before trial starts and documents must be shown to be necessary for preparing his defense.

    Original Description:

    criminal proceeding

    Original Title

    Q5

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Teguh is entitled to inspect and obtain copies of documents seized by the police that are stated in the charge against him. Under Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution must provide the accused copies of such documents before trial. However, Teguh is not automatically entitled to copies of expert reports, like the document examiner's report, unless it is determined to be relevant evidence. While Teguh can apply to the court for other documents under Section 51, the court's discretion is limited before trial starts and documents must be shown to be necessary for preparing his defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    132 views15 pages

    Topic: Disclosure in A Criminal Proceeding

    Uploaded by

    Lee Jun Zhe
    Teguh is entitled to inspect and obtain copies of documents seized by the police that are stated in the charge against him. Under Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution must provide the accused copies of such documents before trial. However, Teguh is not automatically entitled to copies of expert reports, like the document examiner's report, unless it is determined to be relevant evidence. While Teguh can apply to the court for other documents under Section 51, the court's discretion is limited before trial starts and documents must be shown to be necessary for preparing his defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 15

    Topic: Disclosure in a

    criminal proceeding
    Q5

    In the course of police investigation against Teguh for


    an alleged offence of dishonest misappropriation of
    property under section 403 of the Penal Code, certain
    documents had been seized by the police from him.
    Teguh is now charged at the Sessions Court with that
    offence and those documents are stated in the charge.
    Teguh wrote to the police requesting inspection of
    those documents and to take copies thereof. The
    request was rejected by the police.
    Advise Teguh on the applicable criminal
    procedure to enable him to obtain an order to
    inspect and take copies of those documents.
    Is Teguh also justified under the law to apply for
    a copy of a document examiners report
    prepared pertaining to the signature on the said
    documents?

    Procedure
    Arrest + Remand > statement taking
    (s 111 + s 112) > PP decides whether
    to charge or NFA > PP initiates criminal
    proceedings in court > prefer a charge
    > accused was brought to court>
    charge was read, explain & understand
    > plead guilty or claim trial

    If accused person claim trial


    Section 51A of CPC will come in hand
    S 51A(1) provides that the
    prosecution shall before the
    commencement of the trial deliver to
    the accused the documents which
    stated in (a), (b) & (c).

    When does trial comments


    Goh Tongs case : when prosecution
    open the case by calling the first
    witness (when first witness PW 1
    takes his stand in the witness box).

    What the documents (s51A)


    1. FIR related to the charge of an
    accused s 107
    2. Documents which would be
    tendered by prosecution as
    prosecution exhibit (to prove charge
    against accused person)
    3. Favourable facts to the defence

    Application of Section 51A


    Teguh had requested for inspection of
    documents that had been seized by the police
    from him and to take copies thereof. However,
    the request was rejected.
    If those documents are relevant as
    prosecution exhibit, which would be tendered
    by prosecution, then Teguh has the right to
    receive copies of them after he claims trial;
    and those documents are stated in the charge
    sheet, which also known as specific
    documents

    Issue 2: Entitlement of copy of a document examiners report


    prepared pertaining to the signature on the those documents

    Its arguably that examiners report is not fall


    under application of s51A.
    PP v DSAI [2010]: The law on the
    application of s. 51 CPC has not changed
    notwithstanding the introduction of s. 51A into
    the CPC. The court could not read
    parliaments purpose of introducing s. 51A
    into s. 51. Neither could the court indirectly
    rely on the reasons for the inclusion of s. 51A
    to interpret s. 51. Section 51 and 51A are two
    separate and distinct provisions.

    PP v Ramasami [2001] :

    Section 399 of the CPC deals with the admissibility


    of reports of experts such as post mortem reports,
    chemist reports, DNA profiling reports, dental
    reports and the like. It provides that such a report is
    only admissible in evidence if a copy of the report is
    served on the accused persons not less than ten
    clear days before the commencement of the trial.
    Section 399 of the CPC which is both permissive
    (because of the word 'may') and mandatory
    (because of the pre-requisite for prior service of the
    reports) in nature, limits the discretion of the court
    under s 51(1) of the CPC, in that if the prosecution
    does not wish to tender the reports as part of the
    prosecution's case, the hands of the judge are tied
    because these reports no longer form part of the
    evidence for the prosecution.

    Cont
    A fortiori, it becomes unnecessary or undesirable
    for the reports to be produced at this stage of the
    trial since their production serves no purpose to
    the trial at this stage. Consequently, s 51(1) of the
    CPC cannot be invoked by the defence to apply to
    the court to order their production. Thus, the post
    mortem reports were not admissible in evidence
    under s 399 of the CPC because they had not been
    served on the accused persons at least ten days
    before the commencement of the trial. The
    question of supplying copies of these post mortem
    reports to the defence did not arise at all.

    Raymond Chias case


    Supreme Court:
    If the discretion is to be exercised before the
    commencement of trial the Court cannot anticipate how
    the prosecution will proceed. In other words the Court
    would not be justified to direct the prosecution to deliver
    to the accused all documents taken from him for that will
    not be a correct exercise of the discretion under section
    51 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the first place the
    accused should know what documents had been taken
    from him and to say that unless such documents were
    delivered for his inspection he would not be able to
    adequately prepare his defence cannot be a true
    proposition. A general demand for unspecified
    documents should likewise not be entertained

    Cont
    Under section 51 of the Criminal Procedure
    Code the accused is most certainly entitled
    to have copies of documents which are
    specified in the charge. But the accused
    cannot be expected to be given access to all
    documents whatsoever taken by the police
    during
    investigation.
    In
    respect
    of
    application made in the course of the trial
    the materials or documents asked for must
    be relevant to the issues for adjudication.

    Issue 2
    If the document examiners report is not listed in the
    charge sheet, Teguh is not entitled for such copy,
    through application of s51A.
    Teguh still can apply for summon of the documents
    by virtue of S51(1), but the application is limited.
    In PP v Ramasami , it was held that s51 cannot be
    read in isolation, but conjunctively with other
    provision of CPC. Section 399 of the CPC deals with
    the admissibility of reports of experts, and if
    prosecution decided not to tender the expert report
    as evidence, the court cannot order production of
    the documents to the defendants.

    Cont
    In Raymond Chias case, the court held that
    the application of s 51 is limited when the trial
    has not commenced, because the Court cannot
    anticipate how the prosecution will proceed,
    thus the Court would not be justified to direct
    the prosecution to deliver to the accused all
    documents, unless the documents are
    specified in the charge. In addition, In respect
    of application made in the course of the trial
    the materials or documents asked for must be
    relevant to the issues for adjudication.

    Therefore, its unlikely that Tegoh will


    receive a copy of examiner's report
    before the commencement of trial.

    You might also like