LAW578 – LAW OF EVIDENCE II
TUTORIAL QUESTIONS
TOPIC 2 - CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Question 1
Bala and Jeffrey were ‘getting fresh’ with Daizy at a bus stop. Bala was trying to persuade
Daizy to go out with him and in doing so, Bala put his arm around Daizy’s shoulder. Daizy
objected strongly and pushed Bala away causing him to fall. Jefferey yelled at Daizy “You
bitch!” and raised his hand to slap her. Daizy screamed in fright and Jeffrey backed away.
Bala is now charged under Section 354 of the Penal Code for assault with intent to outrage
modesty, while Jeffrey is charged under Section 352 of the Penal Code for assault. Bala and
Jeffrey are jointly tried.
i. Bala denies touching Daizy. When giving evidence in his own defence, Bala tells the
court that he is an active social worker with a non-governmental organisation helping
women who had been abused. Thus it is not his nature to harass or touch women.
Discuss the admissibility of the above evidence. Can the prosecution, in cross-
examination of Bala, ask question about his previous convictions for cruelty to
animals?
ii. Jeffrey maintains that he was an innocent bystander. He tells the court that he was
merely reacting to Daizy’s action of pushing Bala to the ground. Jeffrey also says in
evidence that Bala had bragged to him just before the incident saying, “watch me get
that girl.”
Can Bala’s lawyer cross-examine Jeffrey on Jeffrey’s previous conviction for assault
of his ex-girlfriend?
iii. Daizy has also commenced a civil suit for damages against Jeffrey for assault and
defamation.
At this civil hearing, can Daizy’s lawyer introduce evidence concerning Jeffrey’s
notorious reputation for chatting up girls and getting agressive with them when they
spurn in advances?
Question 2
Ah Seng and Appu, were jointly charged with robbery pursuant to Section 390 of the Penal
Code. They both have previous convictions of house breaking and theft.
At the trial, Appu admitted that he and Ah Seng took part in the robbery but added that he
was forced to do so by threats made by Ah Seng on his life. He testified that five years ago,
he was homeless and roaming the streets when Ah Seng met him and gave shelter and
food. Ever since, he had followed Ah Seng on various house-breaking ventures in the
vicinity. He went on to state that he was very frightened of Ah Seng. The prosecution then
proceeded to cross-examine Appu on his previous convictions.
Ah Seng’s evidence was that he had not taken any part in the robbery and denied ever
meeting Appu. Following this, the assigned counsel for Appu applied for and was granted
leave by the court to cross-examine Ah Seng on his previous convictions.
Dr. Mazlina Mahali
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law
Universiti Teknologi MARA
March 2023
At the end of the trial, the judge convicted both Ah Seng and Appu with 5 years imprisonment
adding that “both the accused need to learn some lessons in prison because they have
trouble with the law in the past.”
With reference to the provisions of the Evidence Act 1950 and case law, consider the
correctness of the court’s decision in allowing cross-examination of Ah Seng and Appu’s
previous convictions, as well as whether the judge is correct in convicting both the accused
based on their bad character?
Question 3
Yong, Tong and Hong are jointly charged with robbery of a mini market. They each have a
number of previous convictions for the same offence. The prosecution rely on the evidence
of Samy, who testified that he was tricked by the three accused into driving them to the mini
market in question but upon learning of their plan to rob it, he fled from the scene.
i. Yong’s counsel through rigorous cross-examination of Samy gets him to admit that he
had five previous convictions for theft. Yong elects to remain silent when the defence
is called. Consider whether the prosecution may lead evidence of Yong’s previous
convictions.
ii. Tong in his evidence asserts that whatever Samy stated in his evidence was a pack
of lies. Consider whether the prosecution may cross-examine Tong on his previous
conviction.
iii. Hong testified that he was invited by Yong and Tong to come along to help them rob
the mini market and he refused the invitation but was put under duress and he merely
agreed to ride in the car. Consider whether Yong’s counsel may cross-examine Hong
on his previous conviction.
iv. Assuming Yong’s counsel does not cross-examine Hong on his previous convictions,
may the prosecution do so, and if they may, consider why would they want to take
such action.
Support your answer with reference to the provisions of the Evidence Act 1950 and decided
cases.
Question 4
Andy, Ben and Catherine are jointly charged with theft of video machines brought to their
shop for repairs by David. They all pleaded not guilty. Andy testified in his own defence. He
claimed that Ben had asked him to help steal the machines but he had refused. Andy has
several convictions for criminal trespass and one conviction of forgery. At trial, counsel for
the prosecution and for Ben cross-examine Andy on these convictions.
Ben does not give evidence but through his counsel claimed that he had nothing to do with
the theft. He calls several witnesses to give evidence that he has done extensive charitable
works for local pensioner’s club for many years including the recent one, which was
organizing charitable fundraising car wash held on March 2013 at the club’s garden. Ben
however has no previous convictions.
Catherine testified at the trial and claimed that David, who is a prosecution’s witness had
falsely implicating her out of resentment because she refused to have an affair with him.
Catherine has previous convictions for theft in 2001 and 2008. The prosecution cross-
examined her on all her previous convictions.
Dr. Mazlina Mahali
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law
Universiti Teknologi MARA
March 2023
In arriving at his decision, the judge took Ben’s good character as relevant to his credibility
and his propensity to commit the offence and acquited him. He refers to Andy and
Catherine’s convictions briefly by saying that they had ‘a bit trouble with the law in the past’
and convicted both of them.
Advise Andy, Catherine and the prosecution whether they have any grounds of appeal;
confining your answer to the issue of character evidence.
Dr. Mazlina Mahali
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law
Universiti Teknologi MARA
March 2023
