Circumstantial evidence -The standard of proof required in criminal cases / Ahmad Khairi Khairuddin
This paper primarily deals with the standard of proof in criminal cases where the evidence against the accused is wholly circumstantial. The first chapter is the introduction to the Paper. In that chapter, the distinctions between direct, indirect and circumstantial evidence are laid out* The se...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Student Project |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Faculty of Law
1984
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/1153/ http://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/1153/1/PPd_AHMAD%20KHAIRI%20KHAIRUDDIN%20LW%2084_5%20P01.pdf |
| id |
uitm-1153 |
|---|---|
| recordtype |
eprints |
| spelling |
uitm-11532018-10-25T06:52:34Z http://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/1153/ Circumstantial evidence -The standard of proof required in criminal cases / Ahmad Khairi Khairuddin Khairuddin, Ahmad Khairi K Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence This paper primarily deals with the standard of proof in criminal cases where the evidence against the accused is wholly circumstantial. The first chapter is the introduction to the Paper. In that chapter, the distinctions between direct, indirect and circumstantial evidence are laid out* The second chapter deals with the principle as enunciated by Alderson B. in R.v.Hodge in where the evidence against the accused is wholly circumstantial, the jury must be satisfied not only that those circumstances were consistent with his having committed the act, but they must also be inconsistent with any other material conclusion than that the prisoner was the guilty person. That direction was followed by earlier Malaysian cases- In that chapter too, the relationship between circumstantial evidence and corpus delicti is also discussed. Chapter III deals with the case of McGreevy v. Director of Public Prosecutions which held that no such special direction is required. The chapter also features the criticisms made against McGreevy's case by the Australian and New Zealand courts. The position adopted by the Malaysian Courts after McGreevy's case is also discussed. Chapter IV inter alia deals with the case of Jayaraman & Ors v. Public Prosecutor which followed McGreevy«s case. The "irresistible conclusion test" as stated by Othman P.J. Faculty of Law 1984 Student Project NonPeerReviewed text en http://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/1153/1/PPd_AHMAD%20KHAIRI%20KHAIRUDDIN%20LW%2084_5%20P01.pdf Khairuddin, Ahmad Khairi (1984) Circumstantial evidence -The standard of proof required in criminal cases / Ahmad Khairi Khairuddin. [Student Project] (Unpublished) |
| repository_type |
Digital Repository |
| institution_category |
Local University |
| institution |
Universiti Teknologi MARA |
| building |
UiTM Institutional Repository |
| collection |
Online Access |
| language |
English |
| topic |
K Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence |
| spellingShingle |
K Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence Khairuddin, Ahmad Khairi Circumstantial evidence -The standard of proof required in criminal cases / Ahmad Khairi Khairuddin |
| description |
This paper primarily deals with the standard of proof in
criminal cases where the evidence against the accused is wholly
circumstantial. The first chapter is the introduction to the
Paper. In that chapter, the distinctions between direct,
indirect and circumstantial evidence are laid out* The second
chapter deals with the principle as enunciated by Alderson B.
in R.v.Hodge in where the evidence against the accused is
wholly circumstantial, the jury must be satisfied not only that
those circumstances were consistent with his having committed
the act, but they must also be inconsistent with any other
material conclusion than that the prisoner was the guilty person.
That direction was followed by earlier Malaysian cases- In that
chapter too, the relationship between circumstantial evidence and
corpus delicti is also discussed. Chapter III deals with the
case of McGreevy v. Director of Public Prosecutions which held
that no such special direction is required. The chapter also
features the criticisms made against McGreevy's case by the
Australian and New Zealand courts. The position adopted by the
Malaysian Courts after McGreevy's case is also discussed.
Chapter IV inter alia deals with the case of Jayaraman & Ors
v. Public Prosecutor which followed McGreevy«s case. The
"irresistible conclusion test" as stated by Othman P.J. |
| format |
Student Project |
| author |
Khairuddin, Ahmad Khairi |
| author_facet |
Khairuddin, Ahmad Khairi |
| author_sort |
Khairuddin, Ahmad Khairi |
| title |
Circumstantial evidence -The standard of proof required in criminal cases / Ahmad Khairi Khairuddin |
| title_short |
Circumstantial evidence -The standard of proof required in criminal cases / Ahmad Khairi Khairuddin |
| title_full |
Circumstantial evidence -The standard of proof required in criminal cases / Ahmad Khairi Khairuddin |
| title_fullStr |
Circumstantial evidence -The standard of proof required in criminal cases / Ahmad Khairi Khairuddin |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Circumstantial evidence -The standard of proof required in criminal cases / Ahmad Khairi Khairuddin |
| title_sort |
circumstantial evidence -the standard of proof required in criminal cases / ahmad khairi khairuddin |
| publisher |
Faculty of Law |
| publishDate |
1984 |
| url |
http://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/1153/ http://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/1153/1/PPd_AHMAD%20KHAIRI%20KHAIRUDDIN%20LW%2084_5%20P01.pdf |
| first_indexed |
2023-09-18T22:45:30Z |
| last_indexed |
2023-09-18T22:45:30Z |
| _version_ |
1777417196819972096 |