Wednesday, October 21, 2020

[698.20] INKUIRI KEBOLEHTERIMAAN KETERANGAN KANAK-KANAK

 


"Bagaimana nak tahu budak layak ke tidak bagi keterangan di mahkamah dan nilai keterangan dia?"
Garis panduan penerimaan keterangan kanak-kanak digariskan melalui seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950:
Setiap kanak-kanak yang dibawa ke Mahkamah dianggap tidak memahami dan tidak tahu menilai sesuatu keterangan sehingga mahkamah berpuas hati menilai awalan kemampuan kanak-kanak tersebut melalui satu inkuiri yg membolehkan pihak-pihak berpuashati untuk meneruskan keterangan kanak-kanak berkenaan.
Perlu diingatkan bahawa mana-mana keterangan yang diterima di bawah peruntukan seskyen berkenaan tidak boleh untuk menyabitkan kesalahan kecuali ia disokong oleh mana-mana keterangan yang lain. .
Dalam kes Mohammad Abdul Kadir v. PP [2012] Mahkamah Tinggi menegaskan bahawa kepentingan dan objektif melaksanakan inkuiri, antara lain diputuskan -
"[14] A clear analysis of the law of evidence showed that a child of tender years could give evidence in any court under two circumstances:
(a) firstly, to give evidence under oath as ordinary witness, if he is sufficiently intelligent and could also understand the nature and consequences of oath needed to be affirmed before giving evidence; or
(b) secondly, to give evidence without oath as provided by s 133A of the Evidence Act 1950.
[15] Therefore, it is very important in my view, that the court must ascertain under which circumstances evidence of a child of tender years should be recorded, either under ordinary circumstances or under s 133A of the Evidence Act 1950; before proceeding to admit his evidence.
[16] Section 133A requires an inquiry to be held before evidence is recorded. In my view the inquiry must be with two objectives in mind; first to determine whether the child is sufficiently intelligent to give evidence; and the second objective of the inquiry is to determine whether the child could give evidence on oath or without oath. In my view the second inquiry is only need to be conducted if the result of the first inquiry shows the child possesses sufficient intelligence to give evidence. I draw support for my view from the cases of Sidek bin Ludan v. Public Prosecutor [1995] 4 MLRH 630; [1995] 3 MLJ 178 and Yusaini Mat Adam v. PP [1999] 3 MLRH 724; [1999] 3 MLJ 582; [2000] 1 CLJ 206.
[17] Section 133A provides procedures for admitting evidence by a child of tender years. It does not provide rules for the weight of such evidence, which must be decided by the trial magistrate. In Muharam bin Anson v. Public Prosecutor [1980] 1 MLRA 120; [1981] 1 MLJ 22, evidence of a child of 10 years old was admitted by trial judge without oath, after an inquiry conducted."
[Emphasis added]
Dalam kes Muharam bin Anson v. Public Prosecutor [1980] memutuskan bahawa pemastian ke atas kanak-kanak memahami maksud sumpah, inkuiri perlu dijalankan. Ia harus dilakukan oleh Hakim dalam menentukan pemahaman kanak-kanak dan kebolehterimaan keterangan kanak-kanak.
Di dalam kes terbaru Kasim Tahir vs. PP [2020] memutuskan kegagalan melakukan inkuiri mandatori adalah fatal dan rayuan telah dibenarkan.
Semoga bermanfaat. Jika ada soalan sila PM kami atau whatsapp. Sila LIKE & SHARE


0 komen:

Dah baca sila bagi sepatah kata..

◄ Newer Post Older Post ►