11.

Dengan merujuk Mallals Criminal Procedure, bagaimanakah perbarisan

cam harus dikendalikan?
Mallals Criminal Procedure (4th Edition), Page 155
The usual and proper way of identifying persons suspected of a particular crime is to
hold a proper identification parade.
i)

All the persons on the parade should be of the same nationality as that of the
suspected person.

ii)

As far as possible they should be from the same station in life as that of the
suspected person.

iii)

There should be no great disparity of ages in the person on the parade.

iv)

The police ought not, either directly or indirectly, do anything which might
prevent the identification being absolutely independent, and they should be
most scrupulous in seeing that it is so.

v)

The identification parade must be held at the earliest opportunity and all
available witness should be required to attend at the very first parade.

vi)

Proper practice in England is that the parade should be arranged by the officer
in duty in charge of the station and not by the officer in charge of the
investigation.

vii)

The witness must not be allowed to see the accused until the moment when
everything is ready and they walk in to pick him out, and they should not have
been previously assisted by photographs or by any verbal or written
descriptions.

viii)

The witnesses should brought in one by one, and are usually directed to touch
the person they identify. Each witness having succeeded or failed, as the case
maybe, should be taken out by a different door and kept apart from the witness
who are to come.

ix)

Every circumstances connected with the identification, the names of the

witnesses and their decisions must be carefully noted by the officer in charge
who must also record the proceedings as fully and fairly and carefully.

12. Apakah prinsip yang dibangkitkan dalam kes R v Turnbull tentang

perbarisam cam?
Guidelines to identifications in respect of visual identification:
a)

When summing up in a case involving dispute identity, the judge must warn
the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in
reliance of the correctness of the identification. He should instruct the jury as
to the reason for the need for such a warning and should make reference to the
possibility that a mistaken witness can be a convincing one.

b)

The judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in
which the identification by each witness came to be made. He should remind
the jury of any specific weaknesses which has appeared in the identification
evidence.

c)

The judge should leave the identification evidence to the jury only when the
quality of such evidence is good.

d)

When the quality of identifying is poor, the judge should withdraw the case
from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence which goes
to support the correctness the identification.

e)

The judge should identify the jury the evidence which he adjudges is capable
of supporting the evidence of identification.

f)

Care should be taken by the judge when directing the jury about the support
for the identification which may be derived from the fact that they had rejected
the alibi.

13. Bolehkah pengecaman seseorang saksi yang telah melihat suspek sebelum
perbarisan cam (selain masa kejadian) diterima oleh mahkamah?
As stated in the case of Dato Mokhtar Bin Hashim & Anor v PP, if the accused
is not a total stranger to the witness, i.e. he is someone known by the witness, the
identification parade is less important. If the accused is an unknown person, then the
conduct of identification parade becomes necessary. This is also stated in the Court of
Appeal case of Thenegaran A/L Murugan & Anor v PP, when all the witness knew
the accused persons prior to the attack, identification parade will be of less important,
than if the accused had been unknown persons whom the witnesses had to be identify.
Thus, it can be said that conducting identification parade becomes necessary if the
accused is never seen by the witness before or unknown to a witness.

14. Bolehkah perbarisan cam dilakukan dengan menggunakan cara one-way

mirror?
In the case of Ong Lai Kim V PP and Other Appeals, three accused were
charged and convicted for robbery and rape of Miss X. Miss X identified all the
accused in three separate identification parade which has been conducted. The
identification was made by Miss X through an adjoining room using a one-way
mirror. On appeal, accuse argue that the use of one way mirror in an identification
parade was not proper.
It was held on appeal that there is no specific provision in the Criminal Procedure
Code or in the Evidence Act 1950 regarding the procedure for identification parade.
Due to the non-existence of such express provision, the court was willing to adopt the
approach taken in England. It was stated then:
In England it is proper to hold an identification parade to identify a suspect by using
an one-way mirror. Archbolds Criminal Pleading and Practice 43th Edition states
at p 1148 as follow:
A parade may take place either in a normal room or in one equipped with a screen
permitting witnesses to see members of the parade without being seen .
Therefore, based on this case the use of one way mirror was held to be proper
provided that the necessary precaution is taken to protect he interest of the accused
person such as the presence of the suspects solicitor, friend or and appropriate adult
in the conduct of identification parade through an one way mirror.
15. Bolehkah pengecaman dalam kandang (dock identification) dibuat?
Yes. In the case of Lim Tion Seng & Ors v Public Prosecutor, the court held that
dock identification is a substantive evidence that can support fact in issue.
16. Apakah contoh fakta yang menetapkan masa atau tempat di mana-mana fakta
persoalan atau fakta berkaitan telah berlaku (fix the time or place at which any fact in
issue or relevant fact happened)
Illustrations (b) of Section 9
17. Apakah contoh fakta yang menunjukkan hubungan pihak yang olehnya manamana fakta itu ditransaksikan (show the relation of parties by whom any such
fact was transacted) di bawah Seksyen 9 Akta Keterangan 1950?
Illustration (e) of Section 9
18. Apakah kesimpulan yang boleh dibuat tentang Seksyen 9 secara keseluruhan?
Section 9 of Evidence Act discuss the reliable of facts that necessary to explain or
introduce any facts in issue or relevant facts. Beside that, the inference suggested by
facts in issue or relevant facts also can be rebut or support by the facts necessary.
Section 9 makes relevant, the identity of a person or things which can be identified in
number of ways by identity parades, fingerprints and DNA. This evidence can be
substantive evidence or corroborative evidence which is essential in prove or denied
prosecution.