There are generally 2 types of experts as held in the case
of PP v Saad bin Mat Takraw by Vincent Ng J, namely:
- Gazette experts, such as the gaming experts appointed by gazette notification under Section 11(6) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953
- Experts that come within the purview of section 45 to 49 of the Evidence Act 1950
With regards to this, Suffian
LP in PP v Muhamed bin Sulaiman
[1982] 2 MLJ 320, 322 (FC) said that: … while the expert must be skilled,
he need not be so by special study, he may be so by experience and the fact
that he has not acquired his knowledge professionally goes merely to weight and
not to admissibility.
In The Queen v
Silverlock [1894] 2 QB 766, identity of handwriting was in question and a
solicitor was called to give evidence on it, and Lord Russell CJ said at page 771: “it is true that the witness who
is called upon to give evidence founded on a comparison of handwritings must be
peritus; he must be skilled in doing so; but we cannot say that he must become
peritus in the way of his business or in any definite way. The questions is, is
he peritus? Is he skilled? Has he an adequate knowledge?”
Phipson on Evidence ,
11th Ed, says in paragraph 1285: “ The competency of the expert
is a preliminary question for the judge and is one upon which, in practice
considerable laxity prevails. Though the expert must be “skilled”, by special
study or experience, the fact that he has not acquired his knowledge
professionally goes merely to weight and not to admissibility.
Apart from that, all expert witness must as a preliminary
issue, provide evidence for qualification to enable the court to consider his
opinion evidence.
Hashim J in Wong Chop Saow v PP [1965] 1 MLJ 247: “May
I, with respect, suggest that to avoid confusion the expert witness should give
his evidence as follows. He should first state his qualifications as an expert.
He should then state that he has given evidence as an expert in such cases and
that his evidence has been accepted by the courts.”
Abdoolcader FJ in
Dato Mokhtar bin Hashim v PP [1983] 2
MLJ 232, 278: Mr. Jagjit Singh complains that Gee has never given evidence
in the High Court but we can see no rule requiring this as a prerequisite to
accepting him as an expert. He has given evidence, as he said, in the lower
courts and even if had not that would not debar him from being accepted as an
expert if he could satisfy the court as to his standing, as there is always a
first tie for everything. Previous testification in court as an expert witness
is no doubt am added consideration but not necessarily the primary
consideration for an otherwise qualified person.
In PP v Lin Lian Chen
[1991] 1 MLJ 316, even if the expert is a government chemist, evidence of
his qualifications must be given. However, it was held that it must be noted
that previous testification in court as an expert witness is not necessarily
the primary consideration for an otherwise qualified person.
In certain instances, the court may take judicial notice of
the fact that an expert has previously given evidence. For example, in Chong Soo Sin (t/a Syarikat Perniagaan
Moden) v Industrial and Commercial Insurance (M) Bhd [1992] 1 MLJ 636, Siti
Norma Yaakob J held that the fact a person is a consultant chemist registered
under the Chemists Act 1975 is sufficient to hold that he has the necessary
skill and experience to qualify as an expert.
As per Seah J in Kong
Nen Siew v Lim Siew Hong [1971] 1 MLJ 262, 263: Dato Ting claims and I
think justly claims that he is conversant with Chinese marriage customary law
and particularly the Foochow custom. I take judicial notice of the fcat that
Dato Ting has appeared in this court in the past as an expert on Foochow
customary law relating to marriage and divorce and his evidence had been
accepted without question.
But, how the court determine the competency of the expert?
Abdoolcader FJ in Dato Mokhtar bin
Hashim v PP [1983] 2 MLJ 232, 278 held that the competency of an expert is
a preliminary question and is one upon which in practice, considerable laxity
prevails.