Articles Cross-Examination In Summary Trial Essay Sample free essay sample

Cross-examination is a really of import procedure in drumhead test. The chief object of cross-examination is to happen the truth and desertion of falsity in human testimony. It is design to destruct or weaken the force of grounds a informant has already given in individual or arouse something into your favor which he has non stated to discredit him by demoing object of cross-examination from a litigious point of view. Whether a prosecution informant one time had impeachment proceeding completed against him. ought to be still cross examined by the defense mechanism advocate or non? The affair about the cross-examined has been stated in the subdivision 173 ( vitamin E ) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 173 ( vitamin E ) of the CPC stated that: ( vitamin E ) The accused shall be allowed to cross-examine all the informants for the prosecution. So. we can see that this subdivision makes proviso for the accused to cross-examine all informants for the prosecution. Okay. that is the basic. Denial of chance to the accused to cross-examine the prosecution informant will be an improper exercising of judicial discretion and will amount to miscarriage of justness [ 1 ] . It is banal that there is an duty on the defense mechanism during the phase of cross-examination to set all inquiry that are relevant and known to the peculiar informant. which the accused intends to trust upon his defense mechanism to enable the informant a opportunity to hold or differ with the defense mechanism instance. [ 2 ] The job is whether the defense mechanism advocate besides can still cross-examine the prosecution informant although the impeachment proceeding has been completed against him. Actually in pattern. our tribunals have been really broad and does non deny or interfere in cross-examination. To the recognition. of our tribunals. notwithstanding. there is no express proviso to postpone cross-examination. Our tribunals have permitted the cross scrutiny of any informant to be deferred until any other informants to be recalled for farther cross scrutiny. If we look at the Evidence Act 1950. subdivision 138 of the Evidence Act provided that: Order of scrutinies and way of re-examination 138. ( 1 ) Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief. so. if the inauspicious party so desires. cross-examined so. if the party naming them so desires. re-examined. ( 2 ) The scrutiny and cross-examination must associate to relevant facts. but the cross-examination need non be confined to the facts to which the informant testified on his examination-inchief. ( 3 ) The re-examination shall be directed to the account of affairs referred to in cross-examination ; and if new affair is. by permission of the tribunal. introduced in re-examination. the inauspicious party may foster cross-examine upon that affair. ( 4 ) The tribunal may in all instances permit a informant to be recalled either for farther examination-in-chief or for farther cross-examination. and if it does so. the parties have the right of farther cross-examination and re-examination severally. It is banal that there is an duty on the defense mechanism during the phase of cross-examination to set all inquiry that are relevant and known to the peculiar informant. which the accused intends to trust upon his defense mechanism to enable the informant a opportunity to hold or differ with the defense mechanism instance. In the instance of Paramasivam v PP [ 3 ] . The issue of before this instance is whether the erudite justice was right in declining to let a prosecution informant. to be cross examined. advocate for the accused asked that he be allowed to cross-examine the informant before the opinion was made and that in the involvement of justness she should be allowed to finish her grounds. He was denied the chance asked for. The tribunal so ruled that the informant was successfully impeached by the prosecution and that her grounds would non be considered. But. on the entreaty phase. the appeal tribunal held that the defense mechanism should at all times be allowed the chance of supporting within the well-established rules of adversary test as against the inquisitorial system. and where there isprima facie a valid ailment. nevertheless thin it might be. it must be entertained. In this instance. the tribunal had repressing the strong belief and telling a retrial. Meanwhile. in PP V Munusamy [ 4 ] . it was held that the refusal to let a informant for the prosecuting officer who had been impeached to be cross-examined by the accused did non represent a misdirection and even if it was. the Federal Court has power to disregard the entreaty. as there was no failure of justness. The respondent in this instance had been convicted by the erudite magistrate for an offense under subdivision 197 of the Penal Code. One of the points submitted by the defense mechanism before the Federal Court was that paragraph ( vitamin E ) allows him to cross-examine every prosecution informant. Therefore. when witness PW 16 was impeached by the prosecution. an application by the defense mechanism to cross-examine that informant should hold been allowed. Refusal to let such application was fatal to the proceedings. Harmonizing to the Federal Court. after the rulling made by the erudite magistrate to impeach the recognition of PW 16. that informant was longer a informant for the prosecution in the existent sense of the word for his grounds no longer constituted any portion of the prosecution instance. Even should at that place be a misdirection. since there was no failure of justness occasioned thereby the entreaty should be dismissed. In other instance of Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim V PP [ 5 ] . the tribunal held that the order made by the learned test justice in impeaching the recognition of the informant Abdullah bin Ambek and denying the right to advocate for all the accused to cross-examine him was clearly incorrect. Here. the Federal Court decided that when impeachment proceedings have been completed. no rulling should be made as to the credibleness of the informant. This should be done merely after all witness prosecution have been called and given grounds at the terminal of the prosecution’s or defense mechanism instance. It would follow that harmonizing to this ulterior position. when a prosecution informant had impeachment proceedings completed against him. he may still be cross-examined by the defense mechanism. We can see that all the three chief instances that have been mention by me above. it were held that all the Judgess agree that the defense mechanism advocate can cross-examine the prosecut ion informant although the impeachment proceeding had completed them. It showed us that the cross-examine procedure is so of import to the right of the parties particularly the right of an accused. In PP V Abang Abdul Rahman [ 6 ] it was held that whenever a informant is non cross-examined. his grounds should be accepted. The other party to the proceedings accepts the grounds and the tribunal should likewise accept it. In Wong Swee Chin V PP [ 7 ] . Raja Azlan Shah. CJ held that the failure to cross-examine a informant on material point of the instance will amount to an credence of the witness’s testimony. Meanwhile. the importance of cross-examine the informant besides held in the Indian instance like in AEG Carapiet V AY Derderian [ 8 ] . the tribunal stated that it is hence of import for the accused to set his indispensable and material instance to the prosecution informant in cross-examination. In subdivision 256 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code. and as besides same as mentioned in the caseBiswas V Stated [ 9 ] . the tribunal held that an accused has an abosolute right to further cross-exam prosecution informant although they have been exhaustively cross-examined before the charge. In decision. by mentioning to the new position of the chief instance of Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim we can understand that the cross-examine can be allowed although the impeachment proceeding against the prosecution informant or defense mechanism informant had completed. KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has allowed the prosecution to impeach former Cabinet curate Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir over his credibleness in relation to a contradiction between his testimony and his statement to patrol over the concluding monetary value of the land for Port Klang Free Zone ( PKFZ ) undertaking. The tribunal will hear entries by parties on point of jurisprudence on Monday to determine if the defense mechanism has the right to acquire the full statement of Abdul Kadir for impeachment proceedings. Justice Ahmadi Asnawi Friday granted the application by lead prosecuting officer DPP Datuk Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah under Section 155 of the Evidence Act to impeach Abdul Kadir over his credibleness. The justice held that there was a material contradiction in grounds given by Abdul Kadir in the tribunal and his statement to the constabulary under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC ) . â€Å"I have observed the grounds given by this informant ( Abdul Kadir ) sing the monetary value of the land where he stated that RM1. 088bil should be added with an involvement rate. â€Å"I have observed what he has stated in his constabulary statement under Section 112 of the CPC. I find it to be material ( contradiction ) and you can continue to impeach him. † Justice Ahmadi ruled. Tun Abdul Majid said Abdul Kadir. in his statement to the constabulary. stated that it would decidedly be a concluding monetary value if Cabinet had decided on the monetary value of the land and it was a normal pattern to convey back to the Cabinet if there was any alteration to it. He said Abdul Kadir had given grounds in the Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik test that the monetary value of the land at RM25 per square pess. covering an country of 1. 000 estates deserving RM1. 088bil. was non a concluding monetary value as it had to be added with an involvement of 7. 5 % . When questioned farther by the deputy public prosecuting officer. Abdul Kadir admitted to hold made a statement to investigating-cum-recording officer Supt R. Rajagopal on July 6 last twelvemonth at 1. 45pm. â€Å"I h ave signed it so I have made the statement to the constabulary. † he said. His attorney Chong Loong Men. who held a watching brief. applied to be given a transcript of the full statement of his client in order to explicate to the tribunal the context in which he would hold given such a statement. Dr Ling’s lead advocate Wong Kian Kheong besides applied for a transcript of the full statement to help the tribunal to do a proper determination in the impeachment proceedings. Upon oppugning Friday. Abdul Kadir said it was non neccesary to convey back to the Cabinet for blessing if there were alterations in the figure on the concluding monetary value as the Finance Ministry was sometimes given the power to do determinations. He said the term concluding monetary value was non normally used in the Cabinet as there was uncertainness on other facets. â€Å"The Government merely approved basal monetary value. The Government gives importance to the officers who will find other eventful facets. The term concluding monetary value is non accurate. † he added. On March 9. Dr Ling. 69. was ordered to come in his defense mechanism over three charges of rip offing the Government in relation to the PKFZ undertaking. Dr Ling was alleged to hold deceived the Government by non uncovering to the Cabinet an extra involvement rate of 7. 5 % yearly in the RM1. 088bil ( at RM25psf ) purchase of the land for the PKFZ undertaking at the Prime Minister’s Office in Putrajaya between Sept 25. 2002 and Nov 6. 2002. Dr Ling besides claimed test to two alternate charges of rip offing. which carry a lesser punishment. Abdul Majid told the justice subsequently that the prosecution would be objecting to the defence’s application to name Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak as a defense mechanism informant. Talking to newsmans subsequently. Dr Ling said he would subpoena Najib and former premier curates Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in his defense mech anism instance. Dr Mahathir is scheduled to look on Monday.