Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA 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
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY