Seksyen 10 Akta Keterangan 1950

7. Apakah yang berlaku dalam kes R v Blake & Tye (1844) 6 QB?
In R v Blake and Tye, the two accused were alleged to have been conspired in
defrauding revenue of custom duties upon certain imported goods. Blake at that
particular time, was a landing waiter whose duty was to check the goods, passing
through the customs. Tye was the customs House agents who maintained the
account of customs duty. Tye would receive the entire customs duty but enter only a
lesser amount in the account books. Blake would attend to the goods and pass them
as being correct. Large sums were collected by Tye and he placed them separately
in a Bank. Periodically, he will issue cheques to Blake representing his share. In the
counterfoils of the cheques, Tye would write the date, amount, the purpose and the
person to whom he issued them. The two documents namely the account book, and
counter foil of the cheques, were seized by the prosecution and tendered as
evidence against Blake. They were in the nature of written statements made by the
conspirator and were proposed to be used as evidence against the other. The court
held that the entries in the account book were made in furtherance of the
conspiracy and therefore admissible in evidence, though they were made in the
absence of Blake. However, the statements in the counterfoil were not made in
furtherance or in execution of the common purpose. Thus, it was inadmissible.

8. Adakah keputusan tentang counter foils dalam kes R v Blake & Tye akan sama
jika ia dibangkitkan di bawah Seksyen 10 Akta Keterangan 1950?
No, it would not be the same. In a similar situation in Malaysia, it would appear that
the counterfoil of the cheques would have been made admissible under section 10,
as what it is required to show is in reference of and not in furtherance of the
common object.

9. Bagaimanakah anda mengaitkan Seksyen 10 Akta Keterangan 1950 dengan kes

Mirza Akbar v Emperor AIR (1940) P.C. 176?
In that case there was a conspiracy between a wife and her lover to murder her
present husband. There were letters written between the wife and her lover which
indicated that they wanted to get married and first had to dispose of the husband.
In the letters they had decided to hire a hired killer. After the husband was killed,
the hired killer was caught. The letters were admitted under section 10.
However when the wife was arrested, she made a statement saying that her lover
was involved. The court held that this statement could not be admitted. Why? This
is because section 10 cannot be widely construed so as to include statement made

by one conspiratorr in the absence of the other. This is not allowed once the
conspiracy had been completed.

10. Apakah keputusan mahkamah dalam kes Liew kaling & Ors v PP [1960] 26 MLJ
306 dan kes Khalid Panjang & Ors v PP (No.2) [1964] MLJ 108?
Court in the case of Liew Kaling & Ors v PP has approved the principle set out in
Mirza Akbar case. Where court in this case stated that, the words of Section 10 of
the Evidence Ordinance are not capable of being widely construed so as to include a
statement made by one conspirator, in the absence of the other, with reference to
past acts done in the actual course of carrying out the conspiracy, after it has been
completed.
Court in the case of Khalid Panjang & Ors v PP also approved and adopted the case
of Mirza Akhbar (in the Federal Court). Where Thomson CJ stated that, as in case of
Mirza Akbar and Liew Kaling, the evidence in question was of a statement of a
conspirator made after the conspiracy had been completed, therefore the principle
enunciated was clearly applicable to the present case.

Seksyen 11 Akta Keterangan 1950

1. Apakah fakta-fakta yang relevan di bawah Seksyen 11 Akta Keterangan 1950?
i) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
ii) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence
or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or
improbable.