In Balachandran v Public Prosecutor1 the defence counsel submitted that the burden on

the prosecution at the close of its case is to make out the case which is beyond the reasonable
doubt and not on a prima facie basis as done in this case. However the Deputy Public Prosecutor
relied on Looi Kow Chai & Anor v Pendakwa Raya2, to disagree with the submission made.
This is because the burden on the prosecution at the close of its case is to make out a case beyond
reasonable doubt and not on prima facie basis contrary to the clear and plain language of Section
180 and Section 182A. Therefore, it cannot be sustained. The court in this case affirmed that the
prima facie case is equal to maximum evaluation and evidence that capable of sustaining a
conviction is evidence which is capable of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt but is not call
as beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case, the Federal Court had the opportunity to reconsider the meaning of prima
facie case. There were 5 principles that be laid out by the court. Firstly, a prima facie case is a
case which is sufficiently strong for the opponent to be called on to answer it and that it can only
be overthrown by rebutting evidence. Thus, the court must evaluate to determine that the
elements have been established. Secondly, the Court must undertake “positive evaluation” of the
credibility and reliability of all the evidence to determine that the elements been established. The
Federal Court avoided from using the term “maximum evaluation’ although the “positive
evaluation” approach is akin to the maximum evaluation approach.

Besides, the test at the conclusion of the Prosecution case is; is the evidence sufficient to
convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? If so, a prima facie case has been made out and
the accused can be convicted if he remains silent when defence is called for. The fourth one is in
regards the proof of reasonable doubt has 2 aspects which are 1) the legal burden on the
prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; and 2) the evidential burden on the
accused to raise a reasonable doubt at the close of the Prosecution case, the evidence of the
prosecution must support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt but at the stage it was not proper
to describe the case as being proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, where the accused remains
silent, there is no necessity to re-evaluate the evidence in order to determine whether there is

1 [2005] 2 MLJ 301.

2 [2003] 2 AMR 89.
reasonable doubt in the absence of any further evidence for such a consideration. Instead, prima
facie case, which is capable of supporting a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, will now be
considered as proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, this case confirmed that a “prima facie” case refer to a case adduced by the
prosecution that was so strong that if the defence was called out but chose to remain silent and
did not adduce any evidence, the accused would be convicted immediately as in actual
construction to a case where unrebutted would warrant a conviction.