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

Sorotan Terkini

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

Read More »

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

Read More »

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

Read More »

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

Read More »
ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami