Circumstantial Evidence : To Establish A Prima Facie Case
Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 by + Hawa +
The strength on the evidence will somehow rely
on the facts of the case and the ability of the evidence to stand by itself.
All we aware, circumstantial evidence is unable to stand alone without the
support from the other circumstantial evidence.
Some of the comment given by Brandon Baum, a
commentator from California in which he says that:
“Circumstantial evidence is typically more
reliable than direct evidence. Unfortunately, most people don't understand what
circumstantial evidence is.
The question here is people or even the
prosecution per se does not relied on the circumstantial evidence only because
they do not know what the circumstantial evidence itself is. To be clearer, we
can look into the simple illustration of circumstantial evidence that had been given by Pollock CB in the Exall’s case
(1866) which it
has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain. Each
piece of the evidence is a link in the chain and if any one of the link breaks,
the chain would fail.
In any other
words, it is more like the case of a rope comprised of several cords. One strand of cord might be insufficient to
sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient
strength. Thus in circumstantial evidence, there may be a combination of
circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction , or more
than a mere suspicion; but the whole taken together may create a conclusion of
guilt with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of. This means
that a circumstance is unable to stand alone without the support from the other
related circumstances. If the prosecution wants to use the circumstantial
evidence in their case, they have to make sure that the evidence produce must
be a strong evidence and does not creates doubts which can cause the
prosecution failed in their case.
There are few
cases that we should look carefully the facts and analyze it so that we are
able to identify whether the circumstantial evidence that adduce to the court
are strong enough to prosecute the accuse. In the case of Sunny Ang v PP [1966] 2 MLJ 195 , it was one
of the case which was the prosecution team successfully using the circumstantial
evidence in their case. In this case, the appellant was charged and convicted of the murder
of his girlfriend despite the fact that the body of the deceased was never
discovered. The facts adduced by the prosecution were so compelling that
the court reached the irresistible conclusion that the appellant had murdered
the deceased.
Among the facts adduced were:-
(a) The appellant was declared a
bankrupt a year earlier and remained one on the day the offence was alleged to have been committed;
(b) The deceased was insured against
accidents with several companies;
(c) The appellant’s mother was named
as a beneficiary in some of the insurance policies;
(d) The deceased made a will naming
the appellant’s mother as the sole beneficiary;
(e) The deceased was a novice diver
and yet the appellant had allowed her to dive in dangerous waters;
(f) The appellant did not
go down to the waters himself when the deceased had failed to resurface;
(g) The deceased had not worn
gloves which were common when looking for corals;
(h) Six days after the incident,
flippers were found which were severed at the strap and cut in two places;
(i) Less than 24 hours after
her disappearance, the appellant made a formal claim.
In the other case, which was substantially based on the circumstantial
evidence when there was no direct evidence can be found. This is the case of Juraimi Hussin & 2 Others v PP,
which is the prosecution adduced the following relevant
facts:-
(a) The decapitated body of the deceased was recovered from the house occupied by the three appellants;
(b) The deceased’s death was caused by the severance of his head by a weapon similar to the axe recovered at the same premises;
(c) The day before his death, the deceased withdrew RM300,000 from his bank accounts and the appellants embarked on a spending spree, spending more than RM200,000, payment being made in RM1,000 notes which were in the same denomination of notes in which the deceased had earlier withdrawn;
(d) The second and third appellants had financial difficulties;
(e) Certain items belonging to the deceased such as his identity card, watch and shoes were found in the appellant’s possession;
(f) The deceased was last seen alive in his car with the second appellant
(g) The body of the deceased was buried in a hole in the ground soon after he was killed. This meant that the hole must have been dug earlier, leading to the inference that there was a pre-arranged plan on the part of the appellants to kill the deceased.
(a) The decapitated body of the deceased was recovered from the house occupied by the three appellants;
(b) The deceased’s death was caused by the severance of his head by a weapon similar to the axe recovered at the same premises;
(c) The day before his death, the deceased withdrew RM300,000 from his bank accounts and the appellants embarked on a spending spree, spending more than RM200,000, payment being made in RM1,000 notes which were in the same denomination of notes in which the deceased had earlier withdrawn;
(d) The second and third appellants had financial difficulties;
(e) Certain items belonging to the deceased such as his identity card, watch and shoes were found in the appellant’s possession;
(f) The deceased was last seen alive in his car with the second appellant
(g) The body of the deceased was buried in a hole in the ground soon after he was killed. This meant that the hole must have been dug earlier, leading to the inference that there was a pre-arranged plan on the part of the appellants to kill the deceased.
The two cases above
illustrate how circumstantial evidence can be strong enough to secure a guilty charge.
Therefore, it should also be noted that circumstantial evidence may not be
strong enough to even establish a prima facie case.
However, in the
case of PP v Sarjit Kaur, the
prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence in attempting that the
accused had murdered her husband. Amongst the facts adduced:-
(a) The accused was an unfaithful wife
(b)The accused was ill-treated
(c)The accused was in a position to benefit
financially from the death of her husband
(d)Trances of blood stains were found on a dress
belonging to the accused;
(e)The accused had insisted that the maids
together with the three children go to bed earlier than usual
In this case, Visu Sinnadurai J ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case. He
quoted
that ;
“…each
of the strands of the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is so
brittle that even when
tied together they are not strong enough for the
prosecution to hold on to. In fact, the entire string of strands
does not
withstand the weight, but merely snap through lack of sufficient evidence,
leaving the prosecution
merely to be clutching at straws, not ropes..”
|
T
In the other case that the prosecution
relied on circumstances evidences is the case of PP v Hanif Basree Abdul Rahman
[2008] 3 MLJ 161 but they failed to establish the
prima facie case as in the previous case. In this case, the prosecution relied on the following pieces of evidence,
namely that:-
(a) There was no sign of break in into
the deceased’s house, suggesting that her killer was someone known to her;
(b) The accuse had an intimate
relationship with the deceased and had access to her house;
(c) The accused was the last
person seen with the deceased and was the last person to have had sexual
intercourse with her;
(d) The DNA profile of the accused
present in the face towel was proof that he was responsible for choking
the deceased;
(e) The accused’s physique and weight
had fit the description that some of the bruises found on the deceased were
caused by the weight of a heavy person pressing onto her body;
(f) The accused’s height
enabled him to climb over the wall at the back of the condominium compound to
escape after committing the murder
(g) The conduct of the accused in shaving
his pubic hair and clipping his fingernails before giving himself up showed his
anxiety and should be viewed as making some preparations to cover his
tracks.
In spite of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, it was held that there were too many doubts in the prosecution
case and that the inferences made, which could be viewed against the accused
were more favourable to him. The prosecution therefore, had failed to establish
a prima facie case.
From the cases above,
it shows how the judge view and approach for circumstantial evidence. Most of
the judge will look into the same approach where they think that the
circumstantial evidence is like a rope which needs to be tied together so that
it will become stronger. This is
supported by the judge in the case of Chan Chwen Kong v PP [1962] 1 MLJ 307 where the judge quote that :
“It must, however, be borne in mind
that in cases like this where the evidence is wholly circumstantial what has to
be considered is not only the strength of each individual strand of evidence
but also the combined strength of these strands when twisted together to make a
rope. The real question is: is that rope strong enough to hang the prisoner?”
To make it clear,
we can look into the case of Karam Singh v PP [1967]
2 MLJ 25, where the judge said that ;
“In a case where the prosecution
relies on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must be inconsistent with any
other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.”
In conclusion, in
order to rely on the circumstances evidence, the prosecution has a heavy duty
to ensure that the evidence is strong enough and does not create doubts which
can cause the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case. During the process of collecting the evidence, if a strand of the rope is missing, then the court will look whether the strand will give a minor or major effect to the evidence to be relevant in the court.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 Response to "Circumstantial Evidence : To Establish A Prima Facie Case"
-
Nada Says....In dealing with a case which relies on circumstantial evidence, it is sufficient if the court makes a finding after considering all the evidence that is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence. There must be a clear chain of evidence should be proven by the prosecution. The evidence must be irresistible to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused. If there is very poor quality of evidence against the accused without any supportive evidence then it would be wholly unsafe to convict the accused.
-
+ Hawa + Says....yes. I agree with you Nada. That is why, when the prosecution tendered the circumstantial evidence in his case, the court will look at it carefully and ensure that the bond between each circumstances is strong. something that has to be highlighted here is, the minor (weight) circumstantial evidence when missing will not affect the other evidences and yet prosecution can still proceed his case and has faith that he will win. thanks Nada for the comment! :)
Leave A Reply