Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Disclosure in a Criminal Proceeding

Basis for the existence Who is the Mode and Who is the Factors that
–Essential difference applicant to Manner? applicant to courts will take
between s.51A and s.51? s.51? into account
s.51

S.51 CPC

1. There is no demand for actual physical search. Just summon for production of document.

2. Main Purpose: to facilitate police investigation.

3. Production test: ‘necessary and desirable’

PP v Teoh Choon Tech (1963) Stricter Approach


1. Def apply to the prosecution for forgery of PP v Syed Abu Bakar v PP (1982)
cheques and letters. 1. ‘this section ought to be construed
2. Request for 2 documents strictly’
3. Court defined ‘necessary and desirable’ as 2. No injustice caused
important at the time it appears relevant to the 3. Can apply extra time if produce during
investigation, inquiry, trial and other the trial
proceedings. 4. PP v Mohamad Bin Musa (1972)
4. This was also quoted in Raymond Chia (1985) application refused on seeing ‘pen-type’
application allowed also in Haji Abdul Ghani bin pistol.
Ishak v PP (1980)

PP v Raymond Chia; Supreme Court states

1. s.51 is an application where it may be made before the commencement of a trial or ‘in the course of a
trial.’

2 It’s the courts to consider justice in the case when deciding

3. The Prosecution has the discretion on what document to give.


4.The def cannot generally get any documents before trial as pre-trial discovery is mostly for Civil Trials.

5. This case was followed in the cases below:

a. PP v Lim Sooi Booi [2003] – application for post mortem report was refused

b. Muzammil Izat bin Hashim v PP [2003] – application of witness statement, sketch plan and
photographs dismissed by the high Court.

c. Ramasami a/l simmathri & Anor [2001] – post mortem report, chemist report, report of forensic
pathology, DNA profiling was refused by the cours.

d. Datuk Tiah Thee Kian v PP [2002] – application for unspecific document or an application in general
term to be refused. In some exceptional situation it is to be allowed.

Q4a – Advise Teguh on the applicable criminal procedure to enable him to obtain an order to inspect
and take copies of those documents.

This is only a suggested answer/discussion:

Brief Facts: Teguh wrote to the police requesting inspection of those documents seize by police from
him. The request was rejected by the police.

Issue: on the applicable criminal procedure to enable Teguh to obtain an order to inspect and take
copies of those documents.

The applicable criminal procedure to enable him to obtain an order to Inspect and take copies can be
seen pursuant to s. 51 CPC. Under s.51(1) CPC an accused person has a right to apply to the court for a
summons for production of document [PP v Teoh Choon Teck (1963); Raymond Chia (1985)]. The
general provisions can be invoked at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceedings contrary to s.
51A.

The accused if granted will have to make the relevant copies of the document himself (Haji Abdul Ghani
b. Ishak v PP 1980).

Teguh is advised that in order to succeed in his application he will need to satisfy the court that the
documents requested is necessary and desirable. The courts in Raymond Chia defined this as important
at the time it appears relevant to the proceedings.

Apply to the facts as discussed in class.

If Teguh could satisfy the court, the application may be granted.

Pursuant to s. 51 A CPC, Teguh is advised that s.51A makes it mandatory to the prosecution to supply
any document or report which will form part of the prosecution case to the accused before the
commencement of trial. (PP v Lim Chen Len 1981; Chong Reng v PP 1954). Following s.51A(1)(a) CPC, the
prosecution will have to deliver any document which would be tendered as part of the evidence of the
prosecution. S.51A(1)(b) provides that the prosecution to deliver any documents which would be
tendered as part of the evidence of the prosecution. S.51A (1)(c) also provides that the prosecution to
provide a written statement of facts favorable to the defense unless it is contrary to public interest s.
51(2) CPC. In the event, the documents requested is not within s.51A, Teguh is advised to apply
pursuant to s. 51 CPC summon to produce documents.

Q4b.

Issue: Teguh would like to apply a copy of a document examine report prepared pertaining to the
signature on the said document.

Teguh is advised to apply to the court pursuant to s.51 CPC; Raymond Chia being grounds of experts in
forming an opinion are relevant facts (Sim Ah Oh v PP 1962).

In the event the prosecution wants to admit the expert report and not call the maker. The prosecution
must give the report to the defense 10 days before the commencement of the trial to the accused. If the
accused person wants the maker of that document to be present the accused must give a 3 day notice in
writing before the commencement of trial. This can be seen pursuant to s. 399 CPC. (Mohammad bin
Abdul Rahman; Fadzil Awalluddin).

Apply to the facts as discussed in class.

Elaborate on the cases on s.399.