PRIVILEGE by Kiran Raaj

PRIVILEGE by Kiran Raaj https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc KIRANRAAJ THAWAM(012019091290) en-us 2020-12-10 20:50:56 UTC 2025-12-11 18:49:00 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet-uploads.storage.googleapis.com/497341625/65af8c3b7cdaa9d9287487a09d149887/pp.jpg DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008009248 Document means any matter expressed, described or howsoever represented, upon any substance, material, thing or article, including any matter embodied in a disc, tape, film, sound track or other device whatsoever.]]> 2020-12-10 20:52:48 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008009248 Computer Generated Document kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008011452

Computer Generated Document is a document produced by a computer.

Admissibility of documents produced by computers, and of statements contained therein Section 90 A

Case:

Gnanasegaran a/l Pararajasingam v PP [1997]

]]> 2020-12-10 20:53:33 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008011452 kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008014401 2020-12-10 20:54:31 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008014401 Presumption of 20 Years/Ancient Document kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008023125 Any documents purporting or proved to be twenty years old is produced from any custody which the court in the particular case considers proper. It must be a competent evidence where all these factors must be taking care of which is trust, accuracy, trustworthiness and credible.

Case:

Commissioners of the Municipality of Malacca v Sinniah [1974]

]]> 2020-12-10 20:57:23 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008023125 kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008027912 2020-12-10 20:58:55 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008027912 Public Document kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008031828 Public documents are documents made for the purpose of enabling the public to use or refer to them. In a simpler term a public document is a document made for the purpose of the public making it.

Legal Provision in Evidence Act 1950 under Section 74

Case:

ANTHONY GOMEZ V KETUA POLIS DAERAH KUANTAN [1977]

]]> 2020-12-10 21:00:16 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008031828 kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008034991 2020-12-10 21:01:21 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008034991 Private Document kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008035885 A private document is basically anything that isn't a public document. Under the Evidence Act 1950, it basically covers everything that isn't mentioned in Section 74. All documents other than those mentioned in section 74 are private. It is non-existence of the right of inspection and copy.

Legal Provision in Evidence Act 1950 under Section 75

All documents other than those mentioned in section 74 are private.

]]> 2020-12-10 21:01:41 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008035885 kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008041492 2020-12-10 21:03:37 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008041492 Privilege kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008057047 A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. Land-titles and taxi medallions are pronounced examples of transferable privilege. These can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth. Various examples of old common law privilege still exist, to title deeds, for example. Etymologically, a privilege (privilegium) means a "private law", or rule relating to a specific individual or institution.]]> 2020-12-10 21:08:55 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008057047 Marital Communication Privilege kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008075635 2020-12-10 21:15:50 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008075635 Legal Professional Privilege kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008076213 2020-12-10 21:16:01 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008076213 State Privelege kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008076354 2020-12-10 21:16:04 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008076354 Privilege Against Self Incrimination kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008076876 2020-12-10 21:16:15 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008076876 kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008085757 Protects all communication between a professional legal adviser(attorney) and clients from being disclosed without the permission of the client.

Professional communications
Section 126
(1) No advocate shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such advocate by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client
in the course and for the purpose of such employment:

Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure—

(a) any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose;
(b) any fact observed by any advocate in the course of his employment as such showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.

(2) It is immaterial whether the attention of the advocate was or was not directed to the fact by or on behalf of his client.

]]> 2020-12-10 21:19:44 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008085757 kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008085822 Evidence as to affairs of State
Section 123
No one shall be permitted to produce any unpublished official records relating to affairs of State, or to give any evidence derived therefrom, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold permission as he thinks fit, subject, however, to the control of a Minister in the case of a department of the Government of Malaysia, and of the Chief Minister in the case of a department of a State Government.

Production of documents and their translation
Section 162
(1) A witness summoned to produce a document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to court notwithstanding
any objection which there may be to its production or to its admissibility. The validity of any such objection shall be decided on by the court.
(2) The court, if it sees fit, may inspect the document unless it refers to affairs of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility.
(3) If for such a purpose it is necessary to cause any document to be translated, the court may, if it thinks fit, direct the translator to keep the contents secret unless the document is to be given in evidence, and if the translator disobeys the direction, he shall be held to have committed an offence under section 166 of the
Penal Code.

Official communications
Section 124
No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence when he considers that the
public interest would suffer by the disclosure:
Provided that the court may require the head of the department of the officer to certify in writing whether or not such disclosure would be detrimental to the public interest and, if the head of the department certifies that such disclosure would not be prejudicial to the public interest, then the officer shall disclose
the communications.]]> 2020-12-10 21:19:45 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008085822 kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008085906 Self-incrimination is the act of accusing oneself of a crime for which a person can then be prosecuted.

Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate
Section 132
(1) A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit, or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to that question will criminate or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, him, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, the witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind, or that it will establish or tend to establish that he owes
a debt or is otherwise subject to a civil suit at the instance of the Government of Malaysia or of any State or of any other person.
(2) No answer which a witness shall be compelled by the court to give shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except
a prosecution for giving false evidence by that answer.
(3) Before compelling a witness to answer a question the answer to which will criminate or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate
him the court shall explain to the witness the purport of subsection (2).]]> 2020-12-10 21:19:47 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1008085906 kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1009075955 Parties to civil suits and wives and husbands
Section 120.
(1) In all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent
witnesses.
(2) In criminal proceedings against any person the husband or wife of that person respectively shall be a competent witness.
(3) In criminal proceedings the accused shall be a competent witness in his own behalf, and may give evidence in the same
manner and with the like effect and consequences as any other witness:
Provided that, so far as the cross examination relates to the credit of the accused, the court may limit the cross-examination to such extent as it thinks proper, although the proposed cross-examination might be permissible in the case of any other witness.

Communications during marriage
Section 122

No person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication unless the person who made it or his representative in interest consents, except in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one
married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.]]> 2020-12-11 07:39:57 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1009075955 kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1009137868 Gurbachan Singh v PP [1966] 2 MLJ

Held:
(1) in cases where the Minister claims privilege over a class of documents, the court can inspect the document in question to ascertain whether in point of fact its production in court would be injurious to the public interest and as in this case the court after inspecting the contents of file had come to the conclusion that they do not substantially relate to affairs of State nor give any reasonable grounds for believing that the production of the file would be injurious to the public interest, it would order the production of the file]]> 2020-12-11 08:24:38 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1009137868 kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1009159013 Televisyen Broadcasts Ltd v Mandarin Video Holdings Sdn Bhd [1983] 2 MLJ 346

Where the first 2 plaintiffs, TVB and RTV were producers of the television series and programmes which were shown on Hong Kong Television. TVB and RTV were owners of the copyright in those television films or soap operas. The third plaintiff Golden Star had the exclusive right from them to reproduce those films on video cassettes for distribution to their dealers or outlets for hiring out to the public. From investigations conducted by Golden Star, the defendants had been hiring out pirated copies of their television series on the black market. They had not given permission to the defendants to make copies of or put on video cassettes their films. The plaintiffs therefore sought for an ex-parte order, the Anton Piller order before the Writ was even served against the defendants.]]> 2020-12-11 08:39:48 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1009159013 kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1009171747 Augustine Paul J in PP v Dato’ Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim (No 3) [1999] 2 MLJ 1

State “This rule is established for the protection of the client, not of the advocate, and is founded on the impossibility of conducting legal business without professional assistance, and on the necessities, in order to render that assistance effectual, of securing full and unreserved intercourse between the two…”]]> 2020-12-11 08:48:41 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1009171747 kiranraaj5199 https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1009248460 PP v Abdul Majid [1994] 3 MLJ 48
The accused in this case is charged for murder under section 302 of the Penal Code. At the preliminary enquiry held before the learned magistrate in Rawang, the public prosecutor attempted to call the accused’s wife, Syarifah Marina bte Syed Hamzah (Syarifah in short) as a witness for the prosecution. The accused’s counsel objected to this on the ground that, though she is a competent witness, she could not be compelled to tender evidence against her own husband. At that stage, Syarifah herself declared that she was unwilling to render evidence against the accused in court. Upon this, the learned magistrate then ruled that Syarifah, though a competent witness could not be compelled to give any evidence in this case against the accused, as he is her husband. The magistrate in this case based his decision on the English authority Hoskyn v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] AC 474; [1978] 2 All ER 136; [1978] 2 WLR 695. ]]> 2020-12-11 09:42:11 UTC https://padlet.com/kiranraaj5199/9y5vl3lkgbe1rqvc/wish/1009248460