First Information Report (FIR)

 Complaint towards police

 First step to initiate an investigation
 Records information of a particular offence at an early stage
 S 107 CPC
 (1) – any information relating to the offence received shall be reduced in
writing and be read over to the informant.
 (4) – police officer is duty bound to receive any information relating an
offence committed anywhere in Malaysia.
Evidence Act 1950
 S 74 – list of public documents.
 S 76 – public officer having custody of public document which any person
has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a certified copy of
it on payment of the legal fees.
Anthony Gomez v Ketua Polis Daerah Kuantan
 Pf charged with criminal intimidation. Police report made against the
victim. Apply to OCPD for a certified copy of FIR. Access denied.
 Issue: Whether the FIR a public document which the applicant has a right
to inspect within section 76, Evidence Act?
 Held:
 HC: FIR not a public document. Police not obliged to provide document.
 FC: the applicant has a right to inspect FIR under common law because of his
interest of it.
 Suffian LP:
 “….though our section is silent as to the right of the
applicant to inspect the FIR in question, it is clear
that under the common law he has that right,
as he is a person interested in it & inspection is
necessary for the protection of his interest…”
Loo Fang Siang v Ketua Polis Daerah,
Butterworth
 Application for an order to compel the police to supply him with the said
report as he required it to process his claim for damages against the rider
of the said motorcycle.
 Held:
 “…a person who seeks to establish negligence on the part of someone
who collided into him has a legitimate interest in knowing what the
other person's version of the accident as given in his police report is.”
Husdi v PP (HC)
 Held:
 “that the common law right of an accused to inspect the first
information arises from the duty of the police to inform the
accused the reason for his arrest, so as to enable the accused, if he so
wishes, to explain his conduct as alleged in the first information, which,
on the face of it, constitutes an offence. ”
 “that the right to an accused person to the first information is nothing
more but a consequence of his right to be informed as soon as may
be of the grounds of his arrest under Article 5(3) of the Constitution,
and this Article is an offshoot of the common law.”
Additional section on CPC
 Section 51A(1):
 The prosecution shall before commencement of the trial deliver to the
accused a copy of the information under s 107 (First Information
Report).
Witnesses' statements under Section 112 CPC
 When application made?
 Pre trial
 During trial
CASE: HUSDI v PP (pre trial)
• The accused is not entitled to a copy of the statement by a
prosecution witness for fear of tampering with witnesses. In this
case, the accused applied for copies of the cautioned statement made
by the accused and of statements made by prosecution witnesses
during the investigation.

• The HC ruled that the accused was allowed to get a copy of the
cautioned statement to be supplied to the accused but not the
statements of prosecution witnesses as there might be tampering of
witnesses.
During Trial:
• The accused is entitled to get a copy of the statement by a prosecution
witnesses for purposes of impeachment.

• Case: Khoo Siew Bee

• The rights to inspect the FIR is limited to statements recorded from the
accused and NOT from others who are potential witnesses against or for
them – as to which the prosecution is under no duty to supply to the
defence

• Only accused can get his own statement and not others.
Accused Statement under section 112
 Khoo Siew Bee v PP
 Held: “in regard to a first information report lodged by a complainant against
an accused, and, with respect, I would hold that it should also be followed in
regard to a cautioned statement recorded from an accused person, so that he
has an interest in it, has the right to inspect it and to a certified copy
before the commencement of the trial especially as here the accused have been
brought to court and charged.”
Chemist’s report
 Section 399 – pre-condition
 where the public prosecutor intends to give any evidence of the report of a
person listed under sub-s (2), he has to deliver a copy thereof to the accused
not less than ten clear days before the commencement of the trial.
 Ss (2)(c) – chemists in the employment of any Government in Malaysia or of
the Government of Singapore.
 Section 51A(1)(b)
 (b) a copy of any document which would be tendered as part of the evidence
for the prosecution;
PP v Raymond Chia Kim Chwee & Anor[1985]
2 MLJ 436 SC
 Held: If the stage is prior to the commencement of the trial, regard must
be had to the requirements in ss. 152, 153 and 154 CPC inclusive, that is,
that a charge must contain sufficient particulars of the offence. In
other words, if the charge specifically mention about the documents,
the defence must be given the right of inspection. In other situation,
the Court would have to be more careful and decide on the justice of the
case by applying the rules of relevancy.
Retnarasa Annarasa v PP
 Held:
 Court ruled that s. 51A CPC should be read together with s. 51 CPC to give a
full effect to the disclosure process
 that any refusal to release or disclose must be justified with reasons for such a
refusal.
 Followed by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP in High Court.
PP v Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (CoA)
 Construed the section strictly.
 Except as what is provided for under s. 51A of the Code the Respondent is
not entitled to discover or inspect evidence or material in the possession
of the prosecution before the commencement of the trial.
 the Respondent was not entitled to get the order he prayed for in his
Notice of Motion.
The investigation diary of the investigation
officer.
 Section 119 CPC
 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act 1950, an accused
person shall not be entitled, either before or in the course of any
inquiry or trial, to call for or inspect any such diary: Provided that if the
police officer who has made the investigation refers to the diary for the
purposes of section 159 or 160 of that Act, such entries only as the officer
has referred to shall be shown to the accused, and the Court shall at the
request of the officer cause any other entries to be concealed from view or
obliterated.