Similar Facts in the Supreme Court
![handle is hein.journals/jmcl18 and id is 179 raw text is: SIMILAR FACTS IN THE SUPREME COURT
In Wong Yew Ming v Public Prosecutor' the Supreme Court
was given a rare opportunity to consider the meaning and
scope of section 15 of the Evidence Act 1950 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') and hence the applicable rules with
regard to similar fact evidence in Malaysia. Unfortunately
this opportunity was not made use of with the result that
similar fact evidence in Malaysia remains a mass of con-
tradictory principles where reference to the Evidence Act is
at best scanty and at worst non-existent.
The accused in Wong Yew Ming was charged under the
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 with trafficking. He had been
found in possession of 250 grammes of heroin. At that time
possession of 100 grammes of heroin was necessary to raise
the presumption of trafficking and conviction on such a
charge could lead to the death penalty or to life imprison-
ment.2
Despite the evidence of the possession of drugs the prose-
cution also adduced evidence from two known drug addicts
as to previous transactions between them and the accused
where the accused had supplied them with drugs.
The Sessions Court President had convicted the accused
and sentenced him to life imprisonment. His appeal to the
High Court had been dismissed and the issue before the
Supreme Court concerned a question of law of public interest
- whether in a trial in which an accused is charged for
trafficking in respect of a particular quantity of dangerous
drug, to wit, heroin, at a particular place and time, evidence
may be admitted that on previous occasions he had sold
'[1991] 1 MLJ 31, hereinafter referred to as Wong Yew Ating.
2The Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was subsequently amended by Act A553, which
inter alia repealed the discretion of the court to impose a sentence of life imprisonment
under section 39B of the Act, which was the section the accused was charged
under, The amendment Act also reduced the amount of the drugs possession of
which would raise the presumption of trafficking from 100 grammes to 15 grammes.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/jmcl18&div=15&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Similar Facts in the Supreme Court
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most