Prima Facie Journey

It is settled law that evidence of mere opportunity, without more, cannot amount to corroboration. The evidence of opportunity should be supplemented by proof of circumstances of such a nature to 'lead to the inference that it was probable that advantage would be taken of the opportunity."

This is found in section 7 of Evidence Act 1950 that a fact becomes relevant if the facts providing opportunity for the happening of the facts in issue or its occurence.

As for cases, let's look at English case first that is R v Donellan. In this case, the deceased was suffering from an ailment for which he used to take laxative. The accused knew about this and also the time at which the mother of the deceased used to serve the medicine. This enabled him to replace the medicine with poison and this was administered by the mother. The accused's knowledge of the deceased's habit gave him the opportunity to carry out the poisoning.

Referring to Malaysia case - Aziz bin Muhamad Din v PP, mere opportunity for the accused to rape the girlfriend just because they stayed overnight together should be supplemented by proof of circumstances to lead to inference that the accused took an advantage of the opportunity. Even though there is proof of circumstances to support the fact that advantage had been taken of the opportunity, unfortunately opinion of both doctors (gynaecologist) varied as to the age of the tear of hymen. One said it's an old tear while another said it's a new tear. The court did not rule out any possibility that the victim might have sexual intercourse after the alleged incident that took place. 

Besides, the accused's friend only saw them at night and also in the morning - which means although they stayed overnight together and there is opportunity to have sexual intercourse, but mere opportunity alone is not suffice to convict the accused of a guilt. 

Personally I think that the principle is good and in line with principle of justice. Just imagine if we were to convict everyone who had the opportunity to commit crime, then mere reliance on opportunity would have caused great injustice to the accused. For example, mere fact that A was last seen with B, had intimate relationship with B and was the last to have sexual intercourse with B before B was found dead does not mean that A is the one who killed B even though he had opportunity to do so. This is similar to PP v Haniff Basree's case. 

Unless there is other proof of circumstances that is strong enough to convict the accused coupled with opportunity to do so, then the accused should not be convicted based on EVIDENCE OF MERE OPPORTUNITY!!!!!