i) Will the prosecution be allowed to adduce the evidence of Charlotte and Delia as well

as Abdul’s previous convictions, to support their case on the rape of Balita?

The facts in issue here is whether Abdul raped Balita.

Character evidence refers to a person’s conduct or previous acts, his reputation among a
group of persons acquainted with him or his tendency or disposition to behave in a
particular manner including specific acts on his part.
Under explanation of section 55, character means reputation and disposition. The
traditional position at common law through R v Rowton is that character is limited to
reputation. However, In our EA, the term character includes both reputation and
disposition under Section 55 with limited exception of s.54. of bad character in criminal
case.

The general rule on the relevancy and admissibility of bad character evidence is provide
under Section 54 (1) evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings is irrelevant
unless evidence has been given that he has a good character in which the case it
becomes relevant. This is called as the shield in Section 54(1). Thus, if evidence as to the
accused’s good character has been adduced, then, the bad character of the accused
becomes relevant.

However, Section 54(2) also provides for instances where the shield against bad
character evidence of the accused person be broken. Under this provision, in short, the
accused in a criminal proceeding has a shield against cross examination on his or her
character but risks losing this shield in the circumstances provided by sub (2) (a) and (b)
and c of section 54. To utilise section 54(2), the precondition must be met, which is the
accused must be called as a witness. If accuse choose not to give evidence then section
54 (2) cannot be utilised.

Section 54 (a) provides an exception to the general prohibition against the cross exam of
the accused of his bad character. This exception allows the accused to be asked about
misconduct which has already been admitted in chief as part of the prosecution’s case,
usually evidence related to similar fact evidence. Unlike exceptions (b) and (c) of the
provision, no action on the part of the accused is necessary in order to activate the right
of the prosecution under this exception under this exception to put questions to the
accused as permitted by it. It has to be noted that to admit similar facts evidence under
this section, it must be admissible under Section 11, 14 or 15 first.

Thus, to admit this evidence of previous misconduct, the sfe test has to be fulfilled. One
of it is the Makin test. Eidence of sfe becomes admissible if the evidence of previous
misconduct tend to show:
1) It is designed or
2) It is accident/ rebut an accident or
3) To rebut a defence.

In the case of Junaidi Abdullah v PP : where the issue was whether SFE which reflects the
bad character evidence of the accused was relevant and admissible, the court found that
since adducing SFE under Section 14 and 15 is necessary to rebut a defence, evidence of
the accused’s bad character was relevant and admissible, and could therefore be
adduced under Section 54(2)(a).
It has to be noted that under this provision, previous bad character of the accused need
not necessarily confined to previous convictions but also include commission as stated
under explanation 2 of section 14.

Nonetheless, if the accused is charged but later is being acquitted of any offence
charged, cross examination concerning the charge for which he been acquitted cannot
be allowed as in R v Pommell where the accused appeal was successful on the ground
that cross examination about his previous acquittal was wrongly permitted by the judge.

In application, generally, under Section 54 (1), it is irrelevant for the bad character of
Abdul to be adduced in court. However, by virtue of exception 54 (2) (a), the fact that
the evidence of Charlotte and deliaa as well as his previous conviction shows the
similarity of the modus operandi used by Abdul in committing the offence of rape of
Belita in which it will be by offering lift, , in the remote wood and sucking toes, wears
short skirt (In Balita and previous conviction) which can be said that Abdul’s previous
misconduct and evidence given by Charlotte and Delia is designed and to rebut accident
as in Makin. It can be rebut the accident as the same thing happened to Charlotte as well
as Delia in similar situation and place. Thus, it shows sfe under Section 14 & 15.
Thus, by virtue of the case Junaidi Abdullah v PP, as the evidence of Charlotte, delia and
abdul’s previous conviction is falls under sfe which is proven by Makin’s test under
Section 14 & 15 of the ea, the situation of the prosecution falls under exception as
provided in section 54(2) (a). This is also because the evidence that the prosecution want
to adduced is his previous conviction and he is not being acquitted, thus according to R v
Pommel, the evidence of previous misconduct can be adduced. Hence, the evidence of
Charlotte, Delia as well as Abdul’s previous conviction can be relevant and admissible to
be adduced by the prosecution as to support the case on the rape of Balita.

Section 54 (2) (a): dalam ni abdul tak witnesss. Kena through cross examination, sebab
dalam ni Charlotte, Delia. Boleh masukkan 54(1) becomes relevant when good character
evidence is tendered, cerita jugak sikit. Law, terus cakap not applicable.
None of the situation here apply.
Pendekkan sikit. Provison.
Junaidi Abdullah: sebab dalam ni the accused were asked.
Charlotte n delia punya evidence has one effect to determine the sexual behaviour of
the accused person which is abdul. The evidence by charlotte which is abdul former
girlfriend there is no evidence that it is unconsented, but the behaviour on which how
he commit the crime, same character. Specific type of girl. He would actually bring the
girl to the remote area. Before having sexual intercourse, suck her toes. Striking
similarity.
Evidence of delia does not provide evidence of good character. S.7 stg which happen
tapi tak sempat berlaku.