Digital Evidence In Malaysia

930 Words4 Pages
ANALYSIS ON SECTION 90A Digital evidence is becoming increasingly common in Malaysia. In the legal fraternity in Malaysia today it is becoming increasingly commonplace to encounter a situation where computer evidence is being tendered in a matter of law to decide a particular. The purpose of this part of the assignment is to analyse the law pertaining to the use of computer evidence in the Malaysian courts. Digital evidence is extremely fragile and can be easily altered. Therefore it is important for us to have laws that strictly govern the admission of such evidence. In these cases digital evidence is admissible under Section 90 A of the Evidence Act 1950. This is the provision that governs the admission of such evidence. Section 90A of…show more content…
This basically means that the precondition stated in the provision above is negated by this very provision. These two provisions can be said to be contradicting each other. Section 90A(6) goes against the very rule that is stipulated in the first subsection of the section. This in most cases leads to a great confusion among legal scholars. During the course of our assignment we have found that this is perhaps the most important part for the courts to clear out. It would be extremely for judicial decisions to iron out this misunderstanding so as to give a clearer picture of the law to legal practitioners. It would be the duty of the courts in situations such as these to give a clearer picture of the law through their judicial decisions. These judicial decisions would then serve as a guideline for the proper interpretation of this particular subsection so that it does not lead to a great confusion with regard to the understanding of the law on this…show more content…
The Malaysian courts have in fact had a number of decided cases pertaining to Section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950. The se judicial decisions have cast some lights as to the application of this section. The first judicial decision would be the case of Hanafi Bin Mat Hassan v Public Prosecutor[ [2006] 4 MLJ 134]. This was a rape case where the victim was raped in a bus. The defence objected to the prosecution tendering the bus ticket bought by the victim on the grounds that it was not produced by a computer. Augustine Paul JCA stipulated that if the provision in Section 90A(2) is applied then it can be said that the ticketing machine is indeed a computer. It can also be said that the bus ticket was produced in the ordinary usage of the computer. He also went on to say that if indeed the bus ticket was not produced in the ordinary usage of the computer, Section 90A(6) provides a cure for that as well. It can be said the learned judge in this case had applied the subsections of Section 90A in such a way that they do not actually contradict each other but serve to work together in rendering the evidence admissible. This case is a very good example of how the provisions in Section 90A can be applied so as to achieve a result that is not confusing or

More about Digital Evidence In Malaysia

Open Document