The contributors are students from the Law Faculty of UKM doing their very best, thus we apologize in advance for the stumbles or any inaccuracy and we welcome feedback or criticism.
The core of this blog is intellectual discourse on the specific issue of expert witness in evidence law. Our endeavour is purely in the interest of education and for the sole purpose of encouraging further intellectual discussion.
The first thing I learned about Evidence law is that evidence is information by which facts tend to be proved
where else the law of evidence is the body of law that regulates the means by
which facts may be proved in both the court of law where the STRICT evidential
rules are applicable. This STRICT evidential rules includes NO hearsay and NO opinions. One cannot go to court and say "i heard that... or i believe this.... or he/she told me this".
So the question that arise is how then do we have expert evidence?
Our society has becomes more intricate and complex, the
judges being only human can only know so much, they are faced with more
elaborate scenarios as our community continues to develop. Thus, here arises
the need for expert evidence. The reasoning is fairly straightforward, because
these expert opinions enable the court to come to a proper decision.
Unfortunately an obstacle arises, that is it is trite law
that the opinions of third persons are inadmissible. Here is where the
delineation between evidences of fact and opinion comes into play.
evidence given is one of fact then the ordinary rules of admissibility applies.
If the evidence is one of opinion, then it would come under the category of
expert evidence. Here we can refer to Abdul Hamid LP in Khoo Hi Chiang v Public
Prosecutor  1 MLJ 265 who cited Hobhouse J in The Torentia  2
Lloyd’s Rep 210 when deciding on whether the evidence sought to be adduced
would be categorized as expert evidence:
“ First, evidence is adduced which can be described as
direct factual evidence, which bears directly on the facts of the case. Second,
there is opinion evidence which is given with regard to those facts as they
have been proved and then there is thirdly, evidence which might be described
as factual, which is used to support or contradict the opinion evidence. This
is evidence which is commonly given by experts because in giving their expert
evidence they rely upon their expertise and experience, and they do refer to
that experience in their evidence. So an expert may say what he has observed in
other cases and what they have taught him for the evaluation of the facts in
the particular case…”
Therefore, it is rather evident that the delineation between
fact and opinion is paper thin.
In Malaysia, Section 45 of the Evidence Act that
defines the situations where an expert opinion is admissible. Now, according to that section, the court may consider experts opinion in only four
areas which are:
(iii) arts; and
or genuineness of handwriting or finger impressions.
Now that we know where the courts may consider expert opinion, what is the role/weightage of these expert opinions?
In Chou Kooi Pang v Public Prosecutor  3 SLR 593, it was held
that expert opinion is only admissible to furnish the court with scientific
information which is likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a
judge. This implies that the judge still retains the authority to form his own
conclusions. The Court of Appeal of Singapore went on to say that if on the
proven facts, a judge can form him own conclusions, without help, the opinion
of an expert is unnecessary.
Therefore, it goes hand in hand the understanding that
evidence of experts can never go beyond an opinion and can never therefore be
of absolute certainty. Such was said by Hashim Yeop Sani J in Public Prosecutor
v Mohamed Kassim bin Yatim  1 MLJ 64, which is an appeal by the Public
Prosecutor against the acquittal of the accused in respect of three charges.
The prosecution tendered specimen signature of the accused to show that the
accused knowingly made false statements separately on tree application forms.
Hashim Yeop Sani J held that the proper way to assess the evidence would be to
see whether the court could act on such evidence if there was corroboration
either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The judge concluded that based on
mere comparison of handwriting, must at best be indecisive.
That case may have been specifically addressing comparison
of handwriting, but it does establish the fact that expert evidence plays a role
as an opinion and that just because an expert gives an opinion, the court is
not robbed of its authority to decide on a matter.
In conclusion, with every general rule, there is an exception.
The general rule :NO OPINIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE
The exception :UNLESS THEY ARE EXPERT OPINIONS.
But, with all due respect to the experts, an
expert’s opinion is essentially still an opinion.