What legal threshold did Najib fail to meet for new evidence?

Question

Accepted Answer

Najib Failed to Meet Legal Threshold for Adducing New Evidence in SRC Case

The Court of Appeal dismissed Datuk Seri Najib Razak's application to introduce new evidence in his SRC International Sdn Bhd case because he did not cumulatively satisfy the legal requirements. Specifically, the court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed evidence was necessary for the justice of the case under Section 61 of the Courts of Judicature Act. Furthermore, the appellate court determined that the additional evidence was not essential to the substantive appeals and that no exceptional circumstances warranted the admission of such evidence.
New Evidence Must Be Unavailable at Trial

A key requirement for admitting fresh evidence is that it must not have been available during the original trial. The court noted that the appellant had not satisfied this condition. For evidence to be considered new, it must be something that could not have been discovered or presented during the initial proceedings.
Relevance and Credibility are Crucial

Beyond being unavailable at trial, new evidence must also be relevant and credible. The Court of Appeal emphasised that any new evidence must be pertinent to the case and possess a degree of trustworthiness. Moreover, it must be of a nature that could potentially create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.
No Exceptional Circumstances Justified Admitting Evidence

The court concluded that the circumstances presented did not meet the threshold for exceptionality that would justify the admission of additional evidence. The legal framework allows for the introduction of new evidence in appeals under specific, extraordinary conditions. In this instance, the court found these conditions were not met by the appellant.
Substantive Appeals Did Not Necessitate New Evidence

The appellate judges determined that the proposed additional evidence was not necessary for the proper consideration of the substantive appeals. This means that the appeals could be adequately addressed based on the evidence already presented during the trial. The court's focus remained on whether the existing evidence supported the conviction and sentence.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What legal threshold did Najib fail to meet for new evidence?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends