Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

CRIMINAL LAW – RAPE – EVALUATING CREDITIBILITY AND CONSENT – CASES OF VULNERABLE WITNESSES UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT

1. Illustrative scenario:

X (father) the defendant is the biological father of the victim, Y (daughter) the plantiff was raped and sexually abuse by X. Y has a learning disability (OKU).

Y was sexually abused by X since 7 years old, Y was afraid to tell her stepmother as Y assume that her stepmother will not believe and get mad at her.

On June 2019, the incident happened during midnight of the fasting month of Ramadhan. The victim was able to descirbe X’s action upon her. The court found that Y was capable to answer those important questions and who was the victim of the crime and who was the perpetrator of the crime.

X challenged the evidence credibility of Y by adducing Y’s learning disability.

Issues:

  • Does a learning disability solely impact the credibility of the complainant’s evidence?
  • Has the defendant successfully introduced reasonable doubt concerning the prosecution’s case?

2. Laws & Legal Principles:

  • Section 133A of the Evidence Act 1950 : This section concerns the testimony of children of tender years. If the court deems a child sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the importance of truthfulness and their testimony is considered reliable, it can be accepted even if not sworn under oath. Once recorded in writing according to Section 269 of the Criminal Procedure Code (which pertains to offenses allowing arrest without a warrant), such testimony is treated as a formal deposition;
  • Aggravating factor : The accused, X, being Y’s biological father, significantly aggravates the offense due to the betrayal of trust inherent in his role as her protector.
  • Consent and Legal Definitions:
  • Penal Code Definition: According to Section 375 of the Penal Code, rape involves sexual intercourse without consent, or where consent is obtained through duress, coercion, fraud, or misunderstanding;
  • Lack of Consent: The prosecution is tasked with proving that the sexual act was performed without the victim’s voluntary and informed consent, which must be given freely and consciously, absent any form of coercion, intimidation, threat, or physical force;
  • Force or Coercion: Involves either the actual application of physical force, or the threat thereof, along with psychological pressure or manipulation.
  • Capacity to consent: Considers whether the victim had the mental and emotional capacity to consent, considering factors like intoxication, disabilities, and overall vulnerability.
  • Penalties: Conviction can lead to imprisonment ranging from a minimum of five years to a maximum of twenty years and may include whipping.

3. Application to Scenario:

  • In this scenario, the court is likely to determine that the defendant exploited the victim’s learning disability to commit the crime during her early childhood.
  • Additionally, the victim demonstrated the ability to comprehend and respond appropriately to critical questions in the case. The court would deem the victim a credible witness, capable of understanding the questions and responding in straightforward terms.

4. Reference cases:

  • Mohamed Jusoh bin Abdullah and Anor v Public Prosecutor [1947] MLJ 130
  • Letitia Bosman v Public Prosecutor and other appeals (No 1) [2020] 5 MLJ 277
  • Mohd Radhi Bin Yaakob (supra)
  • Mohd Jaffri bin Wazin v Public Prosecutor [2024]       MLJU 1060

Recent Post

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
en_USEN