36POLICE INVESTIGATION

ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

POLICE INVESTIGATION

INTRODUCTION
Ones are not oblige to report the commission or intention of others to commit a crime however
there are some situations where the law maker it incumbent on persons aware of the same.
S13 CPC: Public to give information of certain matters
Any person who is aware of the commission of or the intention to commit any of the offences under Penal Code
stated therein or of any sudden or unnatural death or death by violence or any death under suspicious
circumstances or the body of any person being found dead without being known how such person came by
death shall in the absence of reasonable excuse ( burden of prove upon the person so aware) at once inform the
officer in charge of the nearest police station / police officer / the nearest penghulu of such commission.
Notwithstanding to the said section, any person discover dead body and he has reason to believe that the
deceased met with his dead through on unlawful act or omission he cannot remove or in any way alter the
position of the body except so far as is necessary for its safety.
This section is based on principle that it is the duty of every law-binding citizen to report to the police any
crime which they know has been committed.
This section makes it obligatory on every person to give information to police of the commission of or of the
intention to commit the offences specified in it.
Failure to give the information required has been made punishable under ss176 and 202, Penal Code punishable
with imprisonment of 6 months or fines or both.

POWER TO PREVENT CRIME (CPC)

S 103: every police has power to prevent the commission of any seizable offence by using of all
lawful means.
S 104: if a police officer receives information of a plan to commit any sizable offence, he must
inform his superior
S 105: in urgent situations, the police may arrest without warrant the person who planned to
commit any seizable offence.
S 106: a police may in his own authority to prevent any injury to any public property

AID & INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC

S 11 CPC: members of public are bound to assist Magistrate, police etc

to take or prevent the escape of any person
to prevent a breach of peace or
to prevent any injury attempted to be committed
s12 CPC: also bound to assist to execute a warrant of arrest when demanded
s13 CPC: members in possession of information must assist in investigation or not will
punishable under s 176 & 202 CPC (6 month imprisonment or fine)
s 60 ISA: failure to report or give information liable to punishment 10 years imprisonment (only
if the suspect is a terrorist)
s 111 CPC: police may issue written order to require any person to assist investigation.
37POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

1) FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (F.I.R.)

F.I.R. refers to the initial information in WRITTEN form relating to the commission of an
offence given or disclosed to the police officer in charge of the police states and NOT GIVEN
ON OATH nor the maker examined on it.
Emperor v Khwaja Nazir Ahmed(A.I.R.) 1945 PC 18
The receipt and recording of a report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a
criminal investigation. There is no reason why the police if in possession through their
knowledge which genuinely leads them to the belief that a cognizable offence has been
committed, should not of their own motion undertake an investigation into the truth of the
matters alleged
Police investigation usually starts with FIR but it is not a condition precedent to commence
investigation.
Categories of person who may lodge FIR ( s13, CPC read together with ss 177 & 180, PC)
a. Eye witnesses
b. Victim/ aggrieved person
c. Passer by (hearsay)
d. Police who suspect the crime
e. Person aware of the crime but had no personal knowledge
f. Relative/ friend/ well wisher of aggrieved person
g. Accused
The information as long as that it relates to commission of the offence will suffice even if it does
not mention every minute of the detail.
s133 to s135 CPC: Complaint is made to the magistrate with a view to his taking acting but it is
purely discretion whether to act of not on the compliant, if he does not he shall record his reason
for doing so.
Particular mentioned in the F.I.R: accuses name, the part played by him, the weapon used in the
commission of the alleged offence, the injuries sustained, the name of witnesses and his position
in the crime scene

S107: INFORMATION OF OFFENCES

Since FIR is the 1st step of investigation, police must reduce any complaint in writing and cannot
refuse its registration unless with a valid reason
S 107 (1): police write the oral information from complainant and read over the statement before
signed by him (2)
S107(3a), (3b), (3c):
Information meant as something in the nature of complaint or accusation or at least
information of a crime with the object to made the police investigate
S 180 PC: Failure to signed FIR is an offence and punishable with imprisonment for 3 months or
rm1k fine or both
p/s: FIR important to be produced to show the facts of the case was correct
38POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

WHETHER FAILURE TO PRODUCE FIR IN WRITING / PRODUCE FIR AS EVIDENCE ARE

FATAL TO PROSECUTION CASE?
PP v Foong Chee Cheong
Accused charged for extortion. The magistrate acquitted him without calling his defence on
the ground that since F.I.R. not been reduced into writing. Therefore the police have no power
to act and subsequently the arrest was void in law. PP appeal to the High Court.
High Court: The fact that no F.I.R. was made was not itself a ground for throwing out a case
and this case was tried before another Magistrate
Emperor v Khwaja Nazir Ahmed
The absence of F.I.R. cast a cloud of suspicion and tends to weaken the prosecutions case but
it is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation.
To be noted:
If the FIR reduce into writing before the investigation are not adduced at the trial, court may
adverse against PP
If PP can establish prima faci case without FIR, it will not vitiate the prosecution case.
PP v Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim (2000) 2 MLJ 486
Court approved Foong Chee Cheong where there was no police report lodged against the
accused it was not a ground for throwing out a case. FIR just active the police to do the
investigation.
Distinguished with
PP v Abdul Razak bin Johari (1991) 1 MLJ 105
Accused charged for drug trafficking without the prosecution produce FIR as evidence
Held: the accused acquit without called the defense since the prosecution depended
entirely on the evidence of FIR but not produce it. The failure to produce FIR deprived
the accused of an opportunity to cross-examine his accuser.

WHETHER A REPORT WHICH IS NOT FIR IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER S 108 A CPC?

S108 A CPC: a copy of FIR certified by OCPD is admissible as evidence of the content of the
original FIR
Thus, the true FIR cant be produced in court since it was kept at police station and cannot be
remove.
PP V Kang Ho Soh
Police set up a road block and found drug in the accused car. He was arrested and a report
was put up as to the seizure. The prosecution relying on that report therefore the counsel
objected since the report was never produced in court
Held: the report was not FIR. It was an arrest report and therefore not admissible under s108
A. Failure to produce this report is not fatal in prosecution case.
Conclusion: if a report is not FIR, it is not admissible under s 108 A.

WHETHER ACCUSED ENTITLE TO A COPY OF FIR?

S 51 A CPC: the prosecution shall deliver to the accused:
Copy of information taken under s 107 (regarding the commission of offence)
39POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

Copy of document that tendered as part of evidence

Any written statement than favorable to his defense
Anthony Gomez v Ketua Polis Daerah Kuantan
Accused charged for criminal intimidation and applied to be supplied a copy of FIR from
OCPD made by complainant. (defence purpose). OCPD refused and he applied to High
Court arguing that FIR was a public document as stated under s 74 EA so he had right to
inspect it. High Court also rejected and he appeal to Federal Court
Suffian LP: FIR was a public document within the meaning of S 74 EA. Even though the
right of accused to inspect FIR was silent, under the common law the accused had right to
inspect any document if they has interest in it.
Noor Haiyati Bt Saad & Ors v Said b. Ismail (1991) 3 MLJ 332
Police report made one day after the accident was not a F.I.R. although it fulfilled
requirement of s 107
However, once the court holds that a particular police report constitutes a F.I.R., then the
accused therefore must as a right be given a copy of the F.I.R so she can defend herself by
being acquainted with facts leading to the initial complaint made against her.
Husdi v PP
Accused has right to certified copy of FIR and this right same as the right to be informed
ASAP the grounds of his arrest (Art 5(3) FC).
Examples given:
If the FIR was supplied when the accused charged for rape, he may prove the girls was
consented according to the facts in FIR.
FIR contains particular detail of time and place of the offence. Therefore if the accused
charged for murder, he can establish an alibi.

2. INVESTIGATION OF FIR
After receiving FIR, the police have classified the offence whether it was seizable and non
seizable offence.
Where no offence disclosed, the police will not take any further action on the matter. (NFA)

NON-SEIZABLE OFFENCE

S 108 CPC: the police has two option whether want to investigate or not investigate
Wish to not investigate (108(1))
Police must refer the complainant to the magistrate
The complainant brings the matter before a magistrate who may take cognizance of the
offence (s 128(1))
Magistrate shall then examine the complainant under oath (s 133 (1))
Wish to investigate (108(2), (3))
Police must obtain an order to investigate (OTI) from PP
Any police officer higher than sergeant (sergeant, sergeant major, inspector, ASP) or officer
in charge of police station (OCS) may investigate upon receiving the OTI
40POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

If the OCS is below than sergeant (corporal, lans corporal) he may investigate
PDRM v Aundrey Keong Mei Cheng
A woman corporal arrested the accused because of CBT which is seizable offence.
Held: she was not the right person to effect the arrest but she may arrest if she had a warrant
of arrest
PP v Seridaran
Police conducted investigation without OTI for non seizable offence. Magistrates held that
the trial was in nullity and acquit the accused.
High Court: 108 make it mandatory to the police to obtain OTI before doing investigation. If
there is no OTI, the evidence obtained was illegal. However failure to produce OTI not
affects the jurisdiction of courts to hear the matter.

SEIZABLE OFFENCE
S 109CPC: investigation in seizable cases
Any police officer not below the rank of Sergeant or OCS may without OTI exercise all or
any of the special powers in relation to police investigations
The proceeding shall not in question if the officer was not empower to exercise the special
powers of police investigations
S 110 CPC: procedure where is seizable offence is suspected
Upon receiving of FIR, if the police (sergeant & above) suspect the commission of seizable
offence, he shall:
Send a report of FIR to PP
Proceed in person or instruct his subordinate to the scene of crime to inquire into the
facts and take measures to arrest the offender.
**** unless PP directed that the FIR need not to be reported
The situations where the police may not investigate:
Where any information of offences is given against a named person and the case is not
serious (untuk elakkan public buat report palsu untuk kenakan orang)
There is no sufficient grounds to proceed
The police must state his reason for not investigating
If the police exercise the power of deputation (pengganti selalunya corporal ganti sergeant yang
cuti etc) he only had power to act under 110 and not under 111,112,116 & 117
41POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

SPECIAL POWER OF INVESTIGATION ?? ( this not so important)

SPECIAL POWER OF
INVESTIGATION

Report to the PP and decision whether or not to

prosecute

Maintenance of investigation diary Investigation at the scene:

(ID) s110.

Execution of bond Order to require attendance of persons :

(s118) s111

Arrest and application for remand order : Examination and recording of statements :
s117 s112

Search and Seizure :

s116

(1) Investigation at the scene: s110.

After the FIR lodged (107) and IO has determined the nature of offence (108.109) and has
proceeded to make inquiries (110), he may proceed to questioned witnesses at the scene of
the offence.
IO visits the scene of the crime if there is reasonable suspicion of commission of a seizable
offence and inquires into facts and circumstances or takes necessary steps to locate and
preserve any relevant evidence.
May interview person who witnessed the commission of the crime ad if such witnesses
cannot be questioned at the scene, IO can issue a written order under s 111 CPC requiring the
attendance of witnesses.

(2) Order to require attendance of persons: s111

S 111 (1)CPC: IO may made written order to require the attendance of the witnesses within
the limits of police district who acquainted with the case and that person are bound to attend
UNLESS he had to journey 7miles from his usual place ( not including if the journey by train
or motor vehicle)
42POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

111 (2): Failure of attending upon receiving the order, the IO may apply to magistrate for
warrant to enforce his attendance.
It is within the discretionary power of the magistrate to issue a warrant to secure the
attendance of the person.
Failure to obey the order to attend is an order under s174 Penal Code punishable with
imprisonment not more than 1 month or fine not more than RM100 or both.

(3) Examination and recording of statements: s112 ***

Upon attending before IO, he may examine the person orally and reduce into writing any
statement made by such person.
Magistrate also empowered to record any statement or confession made to them (s115).
s112: any person includes witness and the accused.
Such persons are bound to answer all questions asked by officer provided that he may refuse
to answer any question which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or
penalty or forfeiture.

(4) Search and Seizure: s116

The police may enter search and seizure as to locate and collect evidence to prove the
commission of suspected offences.
S116 Search by police officer making a police investigation.
any police empower to search or cause search by applying a search warrant (116 CPC)
and conduct the search in person if there is any reason to believe the production of any
document is necessary to the conduct of an investigation into any offence
If he is unable to conduct the search in person and there is no other person competent to
make the search he may made written order to any officer subordinate to him to make
the search

(5) Arrest and application for remand order

s28: On how person arrested to be dealt with and detention for more than 24hours.
s117: Procedure where investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours.
Where a person is arrested and the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours and
there are the grounds of accusation founded, the IO must transmit to the Magistrate a
copy of the entries in the diary and also produce the accused before the Magistrate.
The magistrate may time to time authorize for further detention for a term not
exceeding15 days on the whole.
Magistrate must record his reason for doing so
Also imposes strict requirement before the magistrate he can validity grant the remand
sought or any extension of time.
PDRM v Keong Mei Cheng Audrey
s117 is a machinery to enable person arrested under s28 to be detained in custody for
longer than 24 hours where it appears that investigation cannot be completed within that
43POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

period. What magistrate had to decide that stage is whether there are ground for believing
that accusation or information is well founded
Re the Detention of R Sivarasa & Ors
An application is made to the magistrate for extension of the detention period for ten
suspects for another 10 days. The grounds submit by the police was the detention period
was too short and they cannot complete the investigations. Magistrate allowed the
application and stated that he satisfied the reason given
Application made to the high court for revision since the remand order by a magistrate
not compliance with s 117.
Held: the further detention was invalid
IO has a mandatory duty to supply a copy of entries in the diary to a magistrate when
producing suspect before him, (s119). There was no said copy produced therefore this
was fatal to application for extension of detention as its mean that the magistrate did not
have the prescribed material.
Three sheets of paper produce in this case not contain the copies of entries in the diaries
as required by s119 and relate to day by day diaries. Besides the timetable listed in paper
could not be considered as copies of entries prescribed under s119.

(6) Execution of Bond s118

Not all cases that persons have to be places under arrest in the course of investigations.
Arrest may be only appropriate in 2 situations where the suspects:
of whom there is a real likelihood of absconding
who may prove difficult and not offer their cooperation if that was not done
to ensure the attendance, it may be better for them to place under the restraint of bonds
S 118 CPC :
If there is reasonable grounds to justify the commencement of criminal proceedings
against ay person, the IO shall require the complainant or other witnesses to execute a
bond to appear before a magistrate court to give evidence against accused
The bond must sent to the magistrate
If they refuse, the IO report to magistrate and then magistrate issue a warrant or
summon to secure the attendance.
For the more exclusive witnesses, and especially those of foreign nationalities with the
potential of leaving of Malaysia, resort may have to be made to commit them to civil prison
until the trial until they give satisfactory security that they will give evidence at the trial
pursuant to the procedure set out in s396.

(7) Maintenance of Investigation Diary ( ID)

ID is important for application of remand order under s117.
s119 : Diary of proceeding in investigation
S159-160 Evidence Act 1950: refreshing memory by the witness by referring to any writing
made by himself or other person or to any document.
Re the Detention of R Sivarasa & Ors
44POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

The ID is not a public document so the accused had no right to inspect it. However if the
IO refer to the ID during the trial, the accused had access to it and may cross refer.

(8) Report to the PP and decision whether or not to prosecute

Upon completing investigations, IO has to report to PP for PP to decide whether there is
sufficient evidence to prosecute and for his discretions if any unless the PP has given his
dispensation.
Investigation normally be completed before a person is charged, as wrong to institute a
prosecution without any investigations at all on the material ingredients to be proved.
Ng Yiu Kwok & Ors v PP (1989) 3 MLJ 166
Where such prior necessary investigation has been carried out, it would not be illegal for
the police to carry out further investigation to suit the exigencies of a case as it unfolds
itself once the trial has commenced.

3. RECORDING OF STATEMENT FROM PERSONS BY POLICE: SCOPE OF

112 & 113
S 112 all statements whether those of police personnel, lay persons @ eyewitnesses, suspects
or accused, are generally made and recorded under this section.
It is a provision empowering the police to record statements from anyone who are acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of the case.
S 113 statements made by any witness, other than accused, called for persons or for defence.

EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES BY POLICE (S 112)

Any IO may examine orally any person (including the accused) acquainted with the facts &
circumstances and shall reduced it in writing.
That person bound to state the truth and to answer the entire question asked unless such question
may expose him to criminal charge. (right to remain silent)
Any person the statement from the witness who eventually is the accused is admissible.
(Narayan Swami v Emperor)

RECORDING PROCEDURE UNDER SEC 112

The recording officer (RO) will engage the said person in preliminary conversation just to put
the people at ease and more importantly, to determine the language of his choice to ensure that
he understands what he will be asked and is able to answer the questions.
Tan Too Kia v PP 1980] 2 MLJ 187
A suspect must be interrogated in language which he is at home but in this case his mother
tongue is Teowchew where only a few can speaks.
Held: as long the accused understands, the stamen taken is necessarily admissible. It not
necessary for the statement to be taken n mother tongue language.
Whether the recording of the statement during examination or interrogation takes the form of
question and answer or not?
PP Subramaniam: The statements need not be recorded in question and answer form
45POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

PP v Abdullah bin Ambik: following Subramaniams case) the recorded statements need
not be recorded in question and answer form
PP v Kamde bin Raspani: At the conclusion of the recording, the contents will be read back
to him in the language in which he made it and he must given an opportunity to make any
corrections he may wish. Only when he is so satisfied then he will be required to sign or
affix his thumbprint thereon
Whether the signature or thumbprints are mandatory in the recorded statement?
Abdul Ghani Bin Jusoh & Anor v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 25
2 accused appealed against their convictions for culpable homicide on the grounds that
their recorded statement were not signed.
The signature or thumb print is not mandatory and hence absence of either is not fatal as
to admissibility. However, any failure or omission to procure the signature or
thumbprint of the accused on his written statement must have reasonable explanation.
In this case, there was no explanation therefore the Federal Court decide that the
statements made was inadmissible
However, writing requirement is not mandatory
Jayaraman & Ors v PP [1982] 2 MLJ 306
8 Accused suspected of killing 4 Hindu at temple gave oral statement to the ASP during
police investigation. The issue was whether the oral stamen was admissible?
The words whenever possible appearing in sec 112(5) should also qualify the writing
limb so that if it was not possible for the IO to reduce the accuseds statement into
writing, there should also be an accompanying explanation for the failure to do so
PP v Veeran Kutty & Anor [1990] 3 MLJ 498
The oral statement cannot reduce to writing to emergency cases.
The word whenever possible ought to mean whenever reasonably possible
within 24 hours the statement leads to the recovery of revolvers and caused cautioned
statement all took place given the urgency of each in relation to other, it was not
reasonably possible
ISSUE ON VOLUNTARINESS OF THE STATEMENTS
whether s 112 & 114 statement must be voluntarily
114 CPC: no police or other person shall prevent/discourage any person from making sttamnet
during police investigation
Noliana Sulaiman v PP [2001] 1 CLJ 36
The accused statement taken under 112 contradicts with her oral statement in court. She
appealed and said that 112 statement was taken involuntarily
Held: 112 statement must be made in voluntary and the burden of prove involuntary lies on
the accused
Yusof bin Omar v PP
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for giving false evidence under section 193 of
the PC and the HC dismissed his appeal. He then appealed to the COA claiming that a trial-
within-a-trial was not held to prove the voluntariness of the appellants statement made under
section 112.
46POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

COA: the accused can still raised the issue of the voluntariness in his defence though the
court had already stated that the voluntariness of a section 112 statement is not to be
determined in trial-within-a-trial.
further held that where a witness is subsequently accused under section 193 of PC, it is not
necessary for the prosecution to prove voluntariness before the statement can be accepted as
evidence
Hasibullah bin Mohd Ghazali v PP [1993] 3 MLJ 321
The accused was arrested in the course of a raid and in handcuff to a police station.(show the
threat)
The absence of signatures may caused the court suspiciously there are allegations of threats
or oppression. Even though the raiding officer already explained that there were no
oppression, such refusal open to the inference that it might be the result of inducement or
threat.

S 115 CPC: Magistrate power to record statement

Magistrate may record any statement / confession made to him at any time BEFORE the
commencement of inquiry in trial
Must in writing, voluntary and no oath are required to be taken

4. ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

112: EXAMINATION OF
WITNESES BY POLICE
Statement made in the course of
police investigation
Statement made to IO (above
sergeant)
Concerns to any statement made by
any person who later be an accused
Oral statement must reduced in
writing
Person bound to state the truth since Not necessary to state the truth
their statement can impeach their
credibility as witness
No caution required
Must voluntary
113: ADMISSION OF STAMET Old section of 113
IN EVIDENCE
Statement made anytime (in the Statement made at any
course of police investigation or time
before or after the charge)
Statement made to inspector Statement made to
above inspector and above
Concerns the admissibly of
statement / confession from
accused only
In oral or writing Statement by any
person charged with
any offence (accused
only)
Caution must be administered after
arrest and before the statement
made
Statement not by inducement,
threat (voluntary).

*** s112 may be converted to s 113 and may be admissible if the person whi gave the statement
becomes the accused.
47POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

PP v Datuk Hj Harun bin Haji Idris

The accused was a former MB Selangor charged for corruption. During the course of of
police investigation, the statement was made in his office and in presence of his lawyer. The
old s113 not allowed the statement taken under 112 to be admissible
Accused charged 2 days after the amendment of 113 that had retrospective effect
Federal Court: the statement taken under 112 admissible since the amendment had
retrospective effect and taken in voluntary

Right of accused to get a copy of statement

FIR, 3RD PARTY REPORT, CAUTION & UNCAUTION STATEMENT OF

Accused had right to get
a copy whether in civil or
criminal proceeding
ARREST REPORT,
POLICE REPORT
Accused not entitle to get
a copy unless the IO
refer during the trial
STATEMENT
Accused had right to a
copy but if there is
security reason, then the
accused is not entitled
STATEMENT OF CO-
ACCUSED
Accused not entitle to the
statement of co-accused
that against him
PROSECUTION WITNESS
Accused not entitle before
a trial (fear of tampering
the witness) but entitle
during the trial (for
impeachment of witness
credibility)
OTHER DOCUMENT
Before the trial, accused
entitle to document that
already specified in charge
and after trial he entitle to
the relevant document to his
defence.

CONDITIONS OF ADMISIBILITY OF STATEMENT

1) Requirement of Signature/ thumbprint
Abdul Ghani Bin Jusoh & Anor v PP: it was not mandatory

2) Requirement of Written/ oral statement

Jayaraman & Ors: not mandatory if there is reasonable explanation

3) Rank of RO
S 113 CPC required Inspector and above
Abd Ghani bin Jusoh:
Probationary Inspector not an inspector therefore the statement taken not admissible
Now already amend so Probationary Inspector alter ego with Inspector

4) Statement of accused made to and in hearing of the officer above than Inspector
The inspector must understand the whole statement
PP v Tan Keo Hock
48POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

The interrogation conduct in Hokkien in the presence of ASP. The inspector not well
understands Hokkien and only understand the gist of the statement so the statement taken
not in presence of ASP.
The accused was discharge but later overruled by Federal Court since this was mot fatal.

5) Involvement of RO/Interpreter in case

Strict approach: Lee Lok v PP
RO also acted as IO so the statement was inadmissible since there is an element of bias

Moderate approach: Mohamed Yusop bin Hj Ahmad v PP

Accused appeal against conviction for drug trafficking on the ground the RO acted as IO
Held: the involvement if RO not a vitiating factor but court must consider whether the
statement taken by inducement, threat, etc. In this case the statement admissible since the
RO not actively involved.

Liberal approach: Ismail bin UK Abd Rahman v PP

The IO acted as RO but it not vitiate the admissibility because the important thing
whether the statement was relevant or not

6) Requirement of Language
Tan Too Kia v PP
RO not well understanding Teochew but court held that it was admissible as long they are
understand each other. The interrogation not necessarily conducted in mother language
PP v Mohamed Zaki
Accused was Thai citizen who spoke in Kelantans dialect. RO recorded the statement in
standard Malay
The statements are not admissible since both not understand each other.

7) Requirement of caution to be administered

S 113 (1) (a) (2) CPC: caution must be administered after arrest and before the accused make
statement.
Karpal Singh v AG
Accused not informed his ground of detention so he can refuse to give cautioned
statement (no proper arrest consider as no arrest at all)
Jayaraman & Ors
If the police uncertain whether there was arrest or not, it recommended that the caution be
administer
The ASP not administers the caution before the accused made statement. The statement
was admissible since there is no arrest. If there is arrest, the statement will inadmissible.
Tan Ewe Huat
Caution administered to the accused contains word akan digunakan instead boleh
digunakan.
COA: not necessarily used the exact word but since the meaning already change, the
stamen was inadmissible.

8) The voluntary statement

49POLICE INVESTIGATION
ZAINURUL ZAINOL & NADIA TAMAZI ASSCOCIATES

113(1) CPC: the stamen gain by inducement, threat or promise will be inadmissible
Dato Mokhtar Hashim v PP
The long and odd hours of interrogation amounted to oppression so the statement not
involuntary.
The confession of accused inadmissible.

9) Trail within a trial

Held to determine the admissibility of statement after the voluntariness of the statement taken
was challenged. (procedure lain untuk persoalkan ketidak voluntary masa bagi statement)

10) Procedure to admit the statement

PP may choose to admit the statement if there is sufficient evidence.
Court may accept ALL or ANY PART of the statement
PP v Mohd Nadzir bin Mohd Noor
Court accept the cautioned statement that the accused throw the bag contained heroine but
rejected that he was kept the bag without knowing the contain.
Accused was a pillion rider who stayed on the bike when the biker runs away. After the
police arrived he throws the bag that contains heroine.
Accused acquit without calling defence since the court did not accept the prosecution
evidence that the accused had knowledge about the heroine.
If the prosecution refuse to produce statement that wished by defence?
PP v Lin Lian Cheng
Prosecution called the IO bit not calling the RO. The defence objected when the IO gave
caution statement since it only can be produced by RO.
The defence succeeds to cast reasonable doubt so the accused acquit without called for
defence.

P R O C E D U R A L : if t h e c o u n s e l o t b je c d t h e a m is b l t y o f e v id n c e f r o m t h e b g in , t w il b e a d m is b le n c o u r t e v n h o u g L A W : e v n t h p r e s c u t io n a s e lr a d y c lo s e d , t h c o u n s e l m a y o b je c t d h e
it s a c u l y a r e n o t a d m is b le a d m is b l ty a n im e