Section 9 - fact to rebut inference
Posted on Monday, November 05, 2012 by Esther Tan
There are 5 types of relevant facts that can be found in section 9 of Evidence Act 1950.. These facts must be relevant so fat as they are necessary for that purpose. However, I am only going to focus on one relevant fact here, that is facts supporting or rebutting inference.
This fact can be used to support or rebut an inference suggested by conduct admitted under section 8.
Let's look at the cases to understand better.
First case that I will refer to is Ling Ngan Liong v PP (Ipoh)
The accused in this case is a medical practitioner and had been charged of rape of one of his patients, aged 13. The learned trial judge then dealt with what he referred to as "extraneous evidence" relating to the conduct of the appellant after the alleged offence in handing over three cheques totalling $10,000 which were to be paid to the complainant's family, and on this evidence convicted the accused under section 376 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to 3 years imprisonment.
On appeal, Tan Ah Tah J said, " It cannot be doubted that when a medical practitioner has to stand trial on a charge of raping his patient, whether the charge be true or false, the attendant publicity may ruin his reputation and his practice. A medical practitioner may prefer to pay a sum of money, even though he has been falsely accused of rape, rather than face the ordeal and publicity of a trial. When the appellant handed the three cheques to the Chairman of the Local Council, he was doing what may be described as an equivocal act, which was capable of more than one interpretation. It may well be that he handed the cheques over in order to avoid publicity and the danger of having violence done to his person. Having regard to the fact that the complainant's evidence was in effect found to be completely unreliable, we are of the view that it was not safe to rely on the conduct of the appellant after the alleged incident in his clinic in order to reach the conclusion that he was guilty of the offence with which he was charged."
In short, the accused introduced relevant fact under section 9 to rebut inference that his conduct in handing over the cheque of $10,000 as compensation for the wrong he had done to the complainant. The real reason he handed over the cheque was maybe not to ruin his reputation as medical practitioner, to avoid publicity and harm done to him by the complainant's family. In other words, he hoped the cheque can close the case and then, he'll be able to move on with his life as medical practitioner.
(Refer also to Choo Chang Teik & Anor v PP)
I agree with the court's decision in Federal Court, Ipoh. Handing over money does not mean the accused is guilty of rape.. This case is way back in 1964 where medical practitioners are considered as one of the most prestigious job, thus no wonder the accused will try every way possible to avoid anything that will harm his career. Hence, the learned trial judge cannot find him guilty based on the conduct of handing the 3 cheques totalling to $10,000 to the complainant's family but ought to take into consideration factors which lead him to do so. The trial judge was wrong in narrowing his view as to interpret the conduct as compensation for the alleged rape he had committed.
However, from another point of view, I have doubts as to why would the doctor gave $10,000 to the girl's family if he is innocent?? Back in 1960s, $10,000 is a huge sum, unlike $10,000 these days. So why pay such a huge sum when logically people will pin point you as the guilty one when you do that. It's just my doubt.
However, from another point of view, I have doubts as to why would the doctor gave $10,000 to the girl's family if he is innocent?? Back in 1960s, $10,000 is a huge sum, unlike $10,000 these days. So why pay such a huge sum when logically people will pin point you as the guilty one when you do that. It's just my doubt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No Response to "Section 9 - fact to rebut inference"
Leave A Reply