Penafian, konspirasi dari KANDANG TERTUNDUH layak DITOLAK MAHKAMAH

Ianya tidak dilakukan bersumpah dan tidak boleh disoalperiksa untuk dikenalpasti kebenaran dan kesahihan.

Maka penafian dan cerita auta konspirasi Wayang Tinggi Anwar cuci taik di jamban Dewan oscar holywood pun tak layak diterima oleh Mahakamh sebagai bukti. Walaupun hakim boleh terima mungkin atas budi biacara mereka, atas asas apa untuk hakim nak terima bulat-bulat?

Ada kes melibatkan kes Mahkamah Tinggi menunjukkan kenyataan tanpa bersumpah dari dock atau kandang tertuduh (bukan kandang saksi) tidak diterima sebagai bukti oleh mahkamah.

Kami memetik dari ABITW:

.... Wong Heng Fatt v Public Prosecuto [1959] MLJ 20 and Ng Hoi Cheu & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1968] 1 MLJ 53.

In the case of Wong Heng Fatt, at p. 21, Smith J who heard the case held as follows:

“I do not consider that a statement by an accused from the dock is evidence in view of the provision of s4(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations Ordinance 1949 the essential part of which reads “… oaths shall be taken by witnesses, that is to say, all persons who… give evidence… before the court…”. Since the appellant was not sworn or affirmed he did not give evidence.” (my emphasis added)

Section 4(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations Ordinance 1949 is now replaced by Section 6(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations Act 1949, which reads:

“(1) Subject to section 7, oaths shall be taken by the following persons –

 (a) witnesses, that is to say, all persons who may be lawfully examined, or give or be required to give evidence, by or before any court or person having, as mentioned in section 4, authority to examine such person or to receive evidence.”

Satu lagi kes menyerahkan pada budibicara mahkamah...

....in the case of Ng Hoi Cheu & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1968] 1 MLJ 53, Chang Min Tat J (as his Lordship then was) disagreed with the view of Smith J....

.... relying on Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1950 which defines “evidence” as, inter alia, “all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matter of fact under inquiry: such statements are called oral evidence…”.

Read more ABITW HERE