Me, The All-Time Desultory

I always wonder and amazed by how judges deliberate on certain issues before reaching a judgement of 72 pages just to make a simple point. You are right, I'm still in very much doubt of the very reason I signed up for law studies.

The good thing is, some of the lecture classes can be real entertaining. Lecturers play a big part to blur case like me. And this owner of college happens to be one of those who manage to attract my attention when he speaks. He stands out, with his passion in teaching, not forgetting his size.

I'm never too keen in revising what I learnt in class until and unless exam is near, where the limited timeline renders a good chance of failing if I were to keep my cool not doing my bit as a candidate.

Allright, let's see the distinct contrast of me and a judge. I never discredit my capability in summarising notes/statements/points/facts/judgement etc. 3 hours lessons into a 3 minutes worth of writing, Here goes:-

When a contract/agreement is in existence, S91 comes in handy. According to the section, no other evidence except for the document itself/secondary evidence of such contents in the agreement can be tendered to court as evidence. However, S92 laid down the exceptions where oral agreement can be admitted provided it is admitted to add, subtract, vary or contradict the terms of the original contract. Of what I remember, some of the conditions where oral evidence can be admitted being:-

(1) a collateral agreement with terms not inconsistent with the original terms provided the original terms is silent on the terms seeking to be added in-court then shall have regards to the degree of formality of the document.
(2) there is a condition precedent of what was said prior entering into the contract
(3) language in the original contract is vague
(4) it is a custom/usage usually attached to the agreement of the same description
the conditions goes on...excuse me for my limited memory space :p

For documentary evidence, the contents can only be proved via primary or secondory evidence-S61. S62 explains what primary evidence is and S63 laid down what secondary evidence includes. I noted subsection(e), for which oral accounts of the contents given by one who has himself seen/heard/perceived as secondary evidence. The application of such differs from S92 especially in answering questions given situation where one intends to provide oral evidence of the content without the intention to vary the terms. S64 says primary evidence has to be tendered but S65 provides for situations where secondary evidence are allowed. Amongst what I can recall, in case where it is impractical to bring the primary evidence to court, original was destroyed/lost or cannot be produced within reasonable time, non-production of the original by people in possession upon notice given, public document, certified copy blabla...Notice is produced is governed under S66. S104 says that the burden or proving the above is upon whoever wishes to give evidence. In a civil suit where one did not object to the mode of proof, it will operate as a waiver per Noriana Sulaiman's case. This differs in criminal suit pursuant to Lee Kok Nam's case and objection can even be taken at appellate stage.

Also, no facts of which the courts take judicial notice need be proven - S56 and S57 laid down the list of 14 categories of fact on which judicial notice must be taken. Pembangunan Maha Murni v Jururus Ladang Sdn Bhd provides that the list in the section aint exhaustive. In answering problem question, it is advisable that one looks into the aggravating factors, for example, rampancy of the offence to see whether judges may take into account of the rampancy to past a heavier sentence. Judicial notice must be taken on subject of common/general knowledge. The test being whether the fact is sufficiently notorious that it becomes proper to presume the existence without proof-Pembangunan Maha Murni's case. If yes, judicial notice must be taken.

And to hell with the standard and burden of proof topics! String of cases with long-winded arguments and constant switch of test to establish whether there is a prima facie case.It all started of with the pre-amendment position in Arulpragasan and post amendment position of Haw Tua Tau, followed by the later cases of Balachandran, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Looi Kow Chai. First stage, the maximum evaluation test coupled with actual beyond reasonable doubt test. Then minimal evaluation leading to a presumption being true unless the evidence is inherently incredible. Finally they settle with an in-between position where maximum evaluation still holds but the next step being to ask, if the judge decides to call upon defendent to enter his defence and defendent elects to remain silent, is the judge prepared him in the totality of evidence as contained in the Prosecution's case. No worries, no ordinary men need to comprehend whatever test mentioned above. We all have many better things to do in life, aren't we?

Gosh...what went wrong in my head? I'm doing this after attending class? I think I need a good rest, chao!