The Assessment of Expert Evidence on DNA in Malaysia

Open access


One of the most common forms of evidence used by the Public Prosecutor in a courtroom to prove a case is DNA evidence. The DNA evidence process started when the police collected the physical evidence relevant to the alleged offence at the crime scene. The collected evidence will then usually be sent to the Department of Chemistry Malaysia for DNA analysis. The chemist will extract the DNA from the relevant physical evidence by using specific techniques. The outcome of the analysis will be used to complete the investigation of the case. Being an independent organization, the Chemistry Department strives to provide impartial forensic science analysis. Thus, from the analysis, sometimes DNA evidence does not necessarily implicate the accused with the alleged offence but may also disclose the involvement of a third party in the alleged offence that may cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. This can be seen in the Federal Court’s case of Public Prosecutor v Hanif Basree Abdul Rahman [2008] 4 CLJ 1. The evidence will then be presented by the prosecution before the court to assist judges in making the right decisions. This indicates the important role played by an expert in the court decision making process. In this context, questions always arise as to the probative value of DNA evidence given by experts in the courtroom. Can the court convict a person solely on DNA evidence? This article focuses on the position of DNA experts in Malaysia under section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950. It was found that although the DNA evidence is given by the experts, the probative value depends on the nature of the evidence itself.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bowers CM (2014) Forensic Testimony: science Law and Expert Evidence. Academic Press United States of America.

  • Dedrickson K (2017) Universal DNA databases: a way to improve privacy? Journal of Law and the Biosciences 4(3) 637.

  • Fisher B. A. (2017). A new challenge for expert witnesses relying on subjective information. Forensic sciences research2(3) 113.

  • Gupta R Gupta S Gupta M (2016) Journey of DNA Evidence in Legal Arena: An Insight on Its Legal Perspective Worldwide and Highlight on Admissibility in India. Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine 2(2) 102.

  • Hunter P (2010) Anything you touch may be used against you. EMBO reports 11(6) 424-427.

  • Ingram J. L. (2017). Criminal evidence (11th ed.). USA; Anderson Publishing.

  • Jinan Mohamad Pauzi & Mariani Ariffina (2015) Legal Status of Chemical Fingerprints under Section 45 of Malaysia's Evidence Act 1950. Procedia Environmental Sciences 30 349-353.

  • Magalhães T Dinis-Oliveira RJ Silva B Corte-Real F Nuno Vieira D (2015) Biological evidence management for DNA analysis in cases of sexual assault. The Scientific World Journal 2015.

  • Matheson S (2016) DNA phenotyping: snapshot of a criminal. Cell 166(5) 1061-1064.

  • Mohd Munzil Muhamad (2010) Reliability and Conclusiveness of DNA Evidence in Criminal Trial. Malayan Law Journal 1 MLJ ciii.

  • Morsek L (2000) Get on Board for the Ride of Your Life-The ups the downs the Twists and the Turns of the Applicability of the Gatekeeper Function to Scientific and Non-Scientific Expert Evidence: Kumho's Expansion of Daubert. Akron L. Rev. 34 689.

  • Noraini Ibrahim. (2007). Building a credible and believable narrative: The role of direct examination in expert witness testimony. 3L Journal of Language Teaching Linguistics and Literature 13.

  • Paul SR Narang SK (2017) Expert witness participation in civil and criminal proceedings. Pediatrics 139(3) e20163862.

  • Raja Muhammad Zuha Raja Kamal Bashah Ramalinggam Rajamanickam (2017). Entomologi Forensik sebagai Keterangan Saintifik. The Law Review 36.

  • Rajesh Gupta (2017) C.D. Field’s A Legal Treatise on Expert Evidence: A Practical Voir Dire (Medical and Non-Medical). (5th edtn) Delhi Law House Delhi.

  • Ramalinggam Rajamanickam (2017) Skop Seksyen 45 Akta Keterangan 1950: Keperluan Untuk Semakan Semula. Jurnal Undang-Undang dan Masyarakat 21(2).

  • Ramalinggam Rajamanickam et al. The Position of Similar Fact Evidence in Malaysia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences [S.I.] v. 6 n. 4 p. 539 jul. 2015.

  • Ramalinggam Rajamanickam Anita Abdul Rahim Anisah Che Ngah (2012) Kerelevanan Keterangan Pakar Forensik di bawah Seksyen 45 Akta Keterangan 1950. The Law Review 414.

  • Ramalinggam Rajamanickam; Anita Abdul Rahim. The Position of Psychological Expert Evidence under the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences [S.I.] v. 5 n. 14 p. 128 jul. 2014.

  • Shaler RC (2011) Crime scene forensics: A scientific method approach. Taylor & Francis Boca Raton.

  • Wheatcroft J. M. & Ellison L. E. (2012). Evidence in Court: Witness Preparation and Cross-Examination Style Effects on Adult Witness Accuracy. Behavioral sciences & the law30(6) 821-840.

  • Chandrasekaran & Ors v PP [1971] 1 MLJ 153.

  • Kulasingam v Thambipillai (1997) 1 MLJ 288.

  • Law Society of India v Fertilizer and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. AIR 1994 Ker 308.

  • Pathmanabhan Nalliannen v Public Prosecutor & Other Appeals [2017] 4 CLJ 137.

  • Premjibhai Bachubai Kasiya v State of Gujarat 2009 Cri. L.J. 2888 (Guj.).

  • Public Prosecutor v Hanif Basree Abdul Rahman [2008] 4 CLJ 1.

  • Public Prosecutor v KK [2007] 6 CLJ 367.

  • Public Prosecutor v Samundee Devan Muthu Kerishnan [2006] 3 CLJ 161.

  • R v Anderson [1972] 1 QB 304.

  • R v Lanfear [1968] 2 QB 77.

  • Rajagopal v Public Prosecutor [1977] 1 MLJ 6.

  • Wong Swee Chin v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 212.

  • Garner BA (2014) Black’s Law Dictionary. (10th edtn) Thomson Reuters United States of America.

  • Martin EA (1994) A Dictionary of Law. Oxford University Press Oxford.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 67 67 24
PDF Downloads 41 41 12