CRI 5 - Trial PDF

Explaining inconsistencies helps to {{c1::enhance}} the {{c2::credibility}} and {{c3::reliability}} of the statement, impacting its weight in legal cases. Misrepresentation by the maker can significantly reduce the {{c1::credibility}} and {{c2::weight}} of an admitted statement. The court does not...

Explaining inconsistencies helps to {{c1::enhance}} the {{c2::credibility}} and {{c3::reliability}} of the statement, impacting its weight in legal cases. Misrepresentation by the maker can significantly reduce the {{c1::credibility}} and {{c2::weight}} of an admitted statement. The court does not automatically reject evidence after a witness\'s {{c1::credit}} has been impeached; the court must carefully evaluate all evidence for {{c2::credibility}}. Section 147(3) EA allows a witness\'s prior inconsistent statement to be admitted as evidence of {{c1::any fact stated}} within, with weight contingent on various circumstances. {{c1::Contemporaneousness}} with the facts is a factor that influences the weight given to a witness\'s prior inconsistent statement under Section 147(3) EA. Motives to distort information are also taken into account. During the impeachment process, a forgetful witness should be handled by considering refreshing their memory under section 161 of the Evidence Act, as {{c1::genuine forgetfulness}} may exist initially. If {{c1::memory refreshing}} fails, proceed with the {{c2::impeachment process}}. The basis for the derivation of impeachment procedure includes {{c1::statute}}, {{c2::case law}}, and {{c3::practice}}. A witness contradicts the essence of his earlier detailed statement by claiming {{c1::memory loss}} regarding the events even after it was shown to him for {{c2::refreshment}}. The four classes of discrepancies in the case \'Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor \[1998\] 2 SLR(R) 211 at \[21\]\' are {{c1::minor}}, {{c1::apparent}}, {{c1::serious}}, and {{c1::material}}. A prior inconsistent statement according to the case \'Public Prosecutor v Heah Lian Kin \[2002\] 2 SLR(R) 745\' is not limited to situations where the witness provides {{c1::two}} affirmative versions of the {{c2::facts}}. The credibility of a witness can be impeached by showing the witness is {{c1::unworthy}} of credit, {{c1::bribery}}, {{c1::corruption}}, or {{c1::inconsistent}} statements. Cases of prosecution for {{c1::rape}} can demonstrate that the witness is generally of an {{c2::immoral character}}. {{c1::The Prosecution}} holds the {{c2::final right}} of {{c3::reply}} as per S.230(1)(v) CPC. {{c1::An inadequate}} and {{c2::tenuous}} defence does not fulfill the Prosecution\'s burden of proof. {{c1::Closing submissions}} are initiated by the {{c2::Defence}} according to S.230(1)(u) CPC. The {{c1::burden}} of {{c2::proof}} always rests with the {{c3::Prosecution}}. {{c1::Rebuttal witnesses}} are subjected to {{c2::cross-examination}} by the {{c3::Defense}} after being called by the Prosecution. The court can exercise discretion to amend the charge when evidence indicates another {{c1::offense}}. The court must recall or summon a witness if their testimony is crucial for a {{c1::just decision}}. Parties can re-call witnesses related to the amended charge upon {{c1::charge alteration}}, unless deemed {{c2::frivolous}}. During the close of prosecution\'s case, all evidence of primary fact should be {{c1::accepted}} as true unless inherently {{c2::incredible}} or {{c3::discredited}}. The Prosecution can call or re-call individuals for {{c1::rebuttal}} after the {{c2::Defense}} presents its case. The court is not obligated to search for {{c1::offenses}} beyond the {{c2::charge}} presented. The {{c1::discretion}} to {{c2::recall}} witnesses should be used {{c3::judiciously}} for a fair case decision. If a {{c1::prima facie case}} exists in a criminal trial, the accused must provide {{c2::a defense}}. Procedural guidelines outlined in S.{{c1::128}} and S.{{c2::131}} of the Criminal Procedure Code should be followed for amending charges in a {{c3::criminal case}}. The court can modify or introduce new charges before the {{c1::defense stage}}. When making a decision based on evidence in a criminal case, the {{c1::totality}} of evidence must be considered. At the close of the Prosecution\'s case, the {{c1::judge}} decides on a question of law, assessing if credible evidence exists to establish {{c2::essential elements}} of the offense. The judge must evaluate if there is {{c1::credible evidence}} to prove all {{c2::essential elements}} of the {{c3::illegal offense}}. The Defense should avoid making a submission of no case solely for {{c1::procedural reasons}} to ensure that the submission is based on the genuine {{c2::absence}} of evidence to establish the case. Re-examination by the prosecutor can occur to clarify points from {{c1::cross-examination}} (S.140(3) Evidence Act). The Defense can {{c1::request}} the Court to dismiss the case citing {{c2::no case}} to answer under S.230(f) CPC. {{c1::Examination-in-chief}} for the Prosecution\'s Witnesses is conducted by {{c2::the prosecutor}} during the trial. {{c1::Reports by qualified individuals}} can serve as evidence without {{c2::their presence}} (S.{{c1::263}} CPC). B24 CRI - The Trial - \[2\] Case for the Prosecution - s230(1) CPC - Charges will be read to the Accused, and the Accused will have to elect whether to remain silent or give evidence. - Opening Statement, if any, will be read Prosecution calls its witness - s263 CPC - Report by a qualified person may be used as evidence without calling the qualified person - Cross-examination by Defence - s140(3) Evidence Act - Order of examinations and direction of re-examination - s136 Evidence Act - No particular number of witnesses shall be required for the proof of any fact. - After proving its case, the Prosecution can offer its remaining witnesses to the Defence. When should an **adverse inference** be drawn? - S.116, illustration (g) Evidence Act -- The court may presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. - Materiality of the witness is paramount - Satli bin Masot v Public Prosecutor \[1999\] 1 SLR(R) 931 at \[20\]-\[23\] - Beh Chew Boo v PP \[2020\] 2 SLR 1375 - \[3\] Test at the **[close]** of the Prosecution\'s case - **[Is there a case for the defence to answer?]** Charges are dismissed if No Case to Answer - Haw Tua Taw v PP \[1981-1982\] SLR(R) 133 at \[17\] - Close of Prosecution\'s case (Wong Wee Kong) - s230(1)(k) & (j) CPC - Acquittal or give defence? - \[3\] **[Amendment]** of the charge - The role of the Court in amending the charge - PP v Tan Khee Wan Iris \[1994\] 3 SLR(R) 168 at \[7\] -- \[10\] - s230(1)(g) CPC - **[Procedure]** of the court to alter the charge - s128 CPC - Court may alter or frame new charge - s129 CPC - Trial after alteration of charge or framing of new charge - s130 CPC - Stay of proceedings if altered or new charge requires Public Prosecutor's consent - s131 CPC - Recall of witnesses on trial of altered or new charge - \[4\] Case for the **Defence** = Demonstrate that there is a **[reasonable doubt in the prosecution\'s case]** by presenting evidence and arguments that challenge the credibility, reliability, or sufficiency of the prosecution\'s evidence. The defence may also present alternative explanations or alibis that suggest the accused did not commit the crime. - **[Defendant gives evidence first, followed by Defendant\'s witness]** - s291 (1) CPC - Accused not to give evidence except on oath or affirmation - \[5\] **Recalling** witnesses - 283(1) CPC - Power of the court to summon and examine persons - This discretion should be exercised **[sparingly]** and **[judiciously]** to the just decision of the case (Sim Cheng Hui v PP \[1998\] 1 SLR(R) 670 at \[30\] - If the Court thinks that the person's evidence is essential to making a just decision in the case, the Court must re- call or summon the witness (S.283(2) CPC). If the charge is altered or a new charge framed by the court, parties must be allowed to re-call any witness with reference to the amended charge, unless the Court thinks the application is frivolous or vexatious. (S.131 CPC) - \[6\] **Rebuttal** witnesses - At the close of the Defence's case, the Prosecution has the right to call or re-call any person for the purpose of rebuttal. Any such witness shall be liable to be cross-examined by the Defence. (S.230(1)(t) CPC) - \[6.1\] Calling additional witnesses requires prior notice in accordance with **[s231 CPC]** \[7\] **Closing submissions** & judgement - Closing submissions will first be made by the Defence (S.230(1)(u) CPC) Final right of reply lies with the Prosecution (S.230(1)(v) CPC) The case against the accused must be proven **[beyond a reasonable doubt]**. - Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v PP \[2006\] 4 SLR(R) 45 at \[61\] - PP v GCK & Anor \[2020\] 1 SLR 486 at \[131, 134 and 135 - The burden of proof always lies with the Prosecution. - A tenuous and inadequate defence does not discharge the Prosecution's burden See Tan Edmund v PP \[1995\] 1 SLR(R) 618 at \[15\] - If the Court finds the accused not guilty, it must order a discharge amounting to an acquittal (S.230(1)(w) CPC) If the Court finds the accused guilty, it must record a conviction and comply with the procedure under S.228 CPC to deal with the issue of sentence. (S.230(1)(x) CPC) Prior inconsistent statement **Impeachment** procedure s157 Evidence Act - You must give the witness the **[opportunity to explain the difference]** between his testimony in court and what he has stated in this witness statement. Only thereafter, can the Defendant\'s counsel make the assertion that the witness should not be believed. Even if the witness is impeached, it does not mean that the entire testimony is struck out. **[Only portions inconsistent will be struck out]**. Public Prosecutor v Heah Lian Kin \[2002\] 2 SLR(R) 745 - Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor \[1998\] 2 SLR(R) 211 at \[21\] - **[Procedure]** - \"Forgetful witness\" - Effect of successful impeachment (s147(3) and 147(6) EA))