Prima Facie

In Malaysia, the definition of prima facie that being used by the judge may refer to law dictionary. For example, in Arulpragasan a/l sandaraju v Public Prosecutor , the judge refer to dictionary to define it as “at 1st sight” or “on the face of it”. In conclusion, for my understanding of the word “prima facie”, it should be defined as “at 1st sight” or “on the face of it”. 






 The degree of proof required in prima facie can be discuss in since Malaysia independent. There was 3 parts in order to explain the history of development of the degree of proof required to establish a prima facie. The first part is before the case of Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor . The second part is at the time of the case of Haw Tua Tau V Public Prosecutor.

A prima facie case, then, is one that is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced by the other side.

In Man bin Abbas, Howes J. seemed to indicate that when a prima facie case at the end of the prosecution case was made out, and the defence was called, the magistrate must convict should the accused elect to remain silent. In case of PP v Chin Yoke where the court has applied this approach held that the prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt in order to allow the calling of the defence.

In Ong Kiang Kek v PP, Wee Chong Jin CJ stated that no conviction can be warranted unless at the close of the case for the prosecution, the court is left with no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. Besides, a similar approach was adopted in PP v Saimin where Sharma J upheld that the prosecution must be able to established the burden of proof throughout the trial. The evidence discloses a prima facie case only when it is uncontradicted and if believed, it will be sufficient to prove the case against the accused. This means that before the defence could be called, the court had to make a determined appraisal of the evidence given by the prosecution and that the prosecution witnesses would have to be subjected to a rigorous test of credibility. In other words,

However, the Privy Council in Haw Tua Tau in interpreting the phrase “if unrebutted” in the old version of section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code was of the opinion that ‘it is necessary for the Court to keep an open mind as to the veracity and accuracy of the witness at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case.’ The Privy Council in Haw Tua Tau whereby in a ‘no defence’ case, decided that there should not be an automatic conviction. Lord Diplock indicated that ‘the Court shall review and reconsider the prosecution’s evidence by a higher standard to adopt whether or not the Court is firm that the guilt of the accused is proven beyond reasonable