This document discusses the rules and principles regarding expert opinion evidence under Section 45 of the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950. It covers topics such as the qualification of experts, when expert evidence is needed, types of expert opinions, and the evidentiary value of expert opinions, particularly regarding handwriting analysis. The key points are: 1) Expert opinion is admissible when the court needs specialised knowledge on issues of foreign law, science, art or identity. Experts must be qualified through education, training or experience. 2) Expert evidence is only needed when the issue is beyond the knowledge of the judge. It cannot be conclusive and the court will consider it along with other evidence. 3) Handwriting analysis is considered the we

1. Experts opinion
• Section 45 of the EA 1950 provides the opinions of
experts. (Pendapat pakar) (1) When the court has to
form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of
science or art, or as to identity or genuineness of
handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon
that point of persons specially skilled in that foreign
law, science or art, or in questions as to identity or
genuineness of handwriting or finger impressions, are
relevant facts. (Apabila mahkamah perlu membuat
sesuatu pendapat atas sesuatu perkara mengenai
undang-undang Negara asing atau mengenai sains atau
seni, maka pendapat-pendapat atas perkara itu dari
orang-orang yang khusus mahir dalam undang-undang
Negara asing, sains atau seni itu dalam soal identity
atau ketulenan tulisan tangan atau cap jari, dalah
fakta-fakta relevan). (2) Such persons are called
experts. (Orang-orang itu dipanggil pakar)

2. Experts opinion
• Qualification of an expert: The competency of an expert is determined by
the court with considerable laxity (lenient): Per Abdoolcader FJ in Dato
Mokhtar Hashim v PP [1983] 2 MLJ 232. Test to be applied to determine
whether a person is an expert: Per Mohamed Azmi SCJ in Junaidi Bin
Abdullah v PP [1993] 3 MLJ 217 states “the test to be applied for the
purpose of s 45 of the Evidence Act 1950 is this. First, does the nature of
the evidence require special skill? Second, if so, has the witness acquired
the necessary skill either by academic qualification or experience so that
he has adequate knowledge to express an opinion on the matter under
enquiry? The answer to both questions must necessarily depend on the
facts of each particular case. The speciality of the skill required of an
expert witness under s 45 would depend on the scientific nature and
complexity of the evidence sought to be proved. The more scientific and
complex the subject matter, the more extensive and deeper will the court
be required to enquire into the ascertainment of his qualification or
experience in the particular field of art, trade or profession. But in the
final analysis in a non-jury trial, it is for the trial judge himself as both
judge of fact and law to determine the weight to be attached to such
evidence notwithstanding the outstanding qualification or experience (or
the lack of it) of the expert”.

3. Experts opinion
• Qualification of an expert:
• To use the words of Suffian LP at p 323 in PP v Muhamed bin
Sulaiman [1982] 2 MLJ 320 when he applied the case of PP v
Virammal AIR 1923 Mad 178, “the jurors themselves, 'could have
used a magnifying glass, or their own eyes and their own mind to
the evidence and [verify] the results submitted to them' by the
expert witness. The lack of qualification or experience on the part
of the expert must necessarily affect the weight of the evidence
rather than admissibility. But where the evidence is of a complex
and scientific nature, the absence of both qualification or
experience can certainly affect admissibility. No hard and fast rule
should be laid down on the issue of the competency of an expert
witness”.
• In PP v Sam Hong Choy [1995] 4 MLJ 121, a Chief Inspector of
Police who was also an assistant armourer was competent to give
evidence on the serviceability of a pistol as the evidence he gave
was not of a complex and scientific nature which would require
special skills.

4. Experts opinion
• Qualification of an expert:
• An expert must be skilled in his field. He may acquire this through
experience. Per Suffian LP in PP v Muhamed Bin Sulaiman [1982]
2 MLJ 320 states “…while the expert must be skilled, he need not
be so by special study, he may be so by experience; and the fact
that he has not acquired his knowledge professionally goes merely
to weight and not to admissibility”. A semi-skilled or semi-
professional persons may qualify as expert witness (Kong Nen
Siew v Lim Siew Hong [1971] 1 MLJ 262) An eye witness may also
give expert evidence (Lee It Leo v R [1954] MLJ 215).
• Evidence of the expertise of the witness: Need for evidence of
qualification: The expert must, as a preliminary issue, give
evidence of his qualifications to enable the court to consider his
opinion evidence (Wong Chop Saow v PP [1965] 1 MLJ 247)
However, it must be noted that previous testification in court as an
expert witness is not necessarily the primary consideration to be
qualified person (Dato Mokhtar Bin Hashim v PP [1983] 2 MLJ
232. In certain instances the court may take judicial notice of the
fact that an expert has previously given evidence: (Kong Nen Siew
v Lim Siew Hong [1971] 1 MLJ 262).

5. Experts opinion
• Distinction between evidence of fact and evidence of opinion: It must be
observed that, the delineation between the categories of evidence, namely, that
of fact and opinion is affine one. If the evidence is one of fact then the
ordinary rules of admissibility applies. If the evidence is one of opinion
then it would come under the category of expert opinion. In Khoo Hi
Chiang v PP [1994] 1 MLJ 265, both appellants were convicted in the High
Court at Penang for trafficking in a dangerous drug, to wit, raw opium in
contravention of s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and sentenced
to death. They appealed and their appeals were heard together. In the appeal it
was argued, inter alia, that: (ii) the prosecution had failed to prove the
competence of the government chemist as it was not shown that he had
expertise or experience in the analysis of dangerous drugs, in particular
opium; Held, dismissing the appeals: (Per Abdul Hamid Omar LP) “It was
clear that the evidence of the chemist on the identity and weight of the
drugs was factual evidence and not opinion evidence within the meaning
of s 45 of the Evidence Act 1950”. The question of adducing evidence to
show the expertise of the chemist does not arise. However, expertise and
qualification of an expert witness must be established where the evidence
consists of not only direct factual observation but of opinion.

6. Experts opinion
• When the need for expert evidence arises: Expert evidence is only
admissible to furnish the court with scientific information which is
likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a judge. Per
Abdul Hamid FJ in Syed Abu Bakar Bin Ahmad v PP [1984] 2 MLJ
19 states “The scope of this section can be found in the commentary in
Sarkar on Evidence 12th ed. at page 488 where, while recognising that
opinion in so far as it may be founded on legal evidence shall be the
function of the tribunal whose province alone it is to draw conclusions
of law or fact -- "There are however cases in which the Court is not
in a position to form a correct judgment without help of persons
who have acquired special skill or experience on a particular
subject, e.g. when the question involved is beyond the range of
common experience or common knowledge or when special study
of a subject or special training or special experience therein is
necessary. In such cases the help of experts is required. In these
cases, the rule is relaxed and expert evidence is admitted to enable
the court to come to a proper decision."

7. Experts opinion
• When the need for expert evidence arises:
• In Chou Kooi Pang v PP [1998] 3 SLR, Held, dismissing the appeals:
(1) The gist of the first appellant's defence was that he was an innocent
courier. An expert witness was called by the defence to give evidence on
the mental state of the first appellant at the time of the offence. However,
low or subnormal intellect was not unsoundness of mind and was not a
defence to a criminal charge, and an educationally subnormal person
could be criminally culpable for his actions. Further, on the evidence,
including that of the expert witness called by the prosecution in rebuttal,
it was not proved that the appellant was of low or subnormal intellect (see
P 11-15); PP v Rozman bin Jusoh [1995] 3 SLR 317 followed. (2) Expert
evidence was only admissible to furnish the court with scientific
information which was likely to be outside the experience and knowledge
of a judge. If, on the proven facts, a judge could form his own conclusions
without help, the opinion of an expert was unnecessary. Here, the
question was whether the first appellant knew or at least suspected that
he was carrying drugs. This could only have been inferred from the
surrounding circumstances by the trier of fact, and was a matter entirely
within the trial judge's purview

8. Experts opinion
• When the need for expert evidence arises:
• R v Turner [1975] 1 All ER 70, Held - (i) The psychiatrist's evidence was
relevant in that it provided an opinion from a knowledgeable person
about the appellant's personality and mental make-up which could play
an important part in human judgments (ii) The evidence was not,
however, admissible, and the appeal would therefore be dismissed, for the
following reasons -- (a) An expert opinion was only necessary where the
expert could furnish the court with scientific information that was likely
to be outside the experience and knowledge of the judge or jury and the
psychiatrist's evidence was not necessary to tell them (a) how an ordinary
person who was not suffering from mental illness was likely to react to the
stresses and strains of life, and (b) what reliance they could place on the
evidence of someone who was not mentally disordered
• Lawton LJ said “The foundation of these rules was laid by Lord Mansfield
CJ in Folkes v Chadd [1782] 3 Doug KB 157 at 159 and was well laid:
“The opinion of scientific men upon proven facts, he said, may be given by
men of science within their own science. An expert’s opinion is admissible
to furnish the court with scientific information which is likely to be
outside the experience and knowledge of a judge or jury. If on the proven
facts a judge or jury can form their own conclusions without help then the
opinion of an expert is unnecessary.

9. Experts opinion
• Types of experts: In PP v Saad
Bin Mat Takraw [1998] 3 MLJ
784, there are two types of
experts, namely: (i) gazetted
experts, such as gaming experts
appointed by gazette notification
under s 11(6) of the Common
Gaming Houses Act 1953; and
(ii) experts that come within the
purview of ss 45 to 49 of the
Evidence Act 1950.
• Categories of expert evidence:
Under section 45 of EA 1950,
expert evidence is admissible on
matters of foreign law, science or
art, or as to identity or
genuineness of handwriting or
finger impressions.

10. Experts opinion
• Handwriting: A court cannot rule on handwriting without the aid of
experts. Per Abdul Hamid FJ in Syed Abu Bakar Bin Ahmad v PP [1984]
2 MLJ 19 states Held: It is a settled principle that while a judge who sits
alone is entitled to weigh all the evidence, to put his magnifying glass to
determine the probabilities and form his own opinion or judgment, it
would be erroneous for him to form a conclusion on a matter which could
only be properly concluded with the aid of expert evidence. In this case as
the document was not examined by an expert in handwriting, it was not
correct for the judge to come to a finding of fact that the writing on the
receipt appeared to come from the same pen used by the appellant to sign
his name and write the receipt number. In the present case Sgt. Paou
testified that the signed only on a blank form and he did not write the
words "tiga ratus shaja". On the other hand, the defence contended that
Sgt. Paou wrote those words "tiga ratus shaja" and signed. There was
therefore a dispute as to handwriting and as such it was necessary for the
learned Judge as tribunal of fact to make a finding as to the author of
those words and figure "three hundred". Since the document was not
examined by any person who has acquired a special skill or expert in the
particular subject, i.e. handwriting, the question therefore is was the
learned Judge right in making the finding of fact that he did in the
absence and without the aid of expert evidence?. Answer – NO.

11. Experts opinion
• Evidentiary value of the evidence of a
handwriting expert: It is settled law that
evidence by a handwriting expert can
never be conclusive because it is only
opinion evidence. In re B Venkata Row
(1913) ILR 36 Mad 159, 14 IC 418, 13 cr
LJ a quotation from Dr. Lawson's work on
the Law of Expert and Opinion Evidence,
which runs as follows: "The evidence of
the genuineness of the signature based
upon the comparison of handwriting and
of the opinion of experts is entitled to
proper consideration and weight. It must
be confessed however that it is of the
lowest order of evidence or of the most
unsatisfactory character. We believe that
in this opinion experienced laymen unite
with the members of the legal profession.
Of all kinds of evidence admitted in a
court this is the most unsatisfactory. It is
so weak and decrepit as scarcely to deserve
a place in our system of jurisprudence."

12. Experts opinion
• In Srikant v King Emperor AIR 1963 SC
1728, two learned judges of the Allahabad
High Court observed that: "To base a
conviction upon the evidence of an expert
in handwriting is, as a general rule, very
unsafe." and this observation was
approved of by a bench of two other
learned judges of the same court in Kali
Charan Mukerji v Emperor (1909) 9 Cr
LJ 498, 2 IC 154. In Dalip Kaur v Pegawai
Polis Daerah Bukit Mertajam [1992] 1
MLJ 1 it was observed that it is was trite
of law that evidence by a handwriting
expert should be viewed with caution. But
such evidence is entitled to be given proper
consideration and weight in the context of
the other evidence available to the court.
The Supreme Court of India's decision in
Murarilal v State of MP AIR 1980 SC 531
at p 534 states “the opinion evidence of a
handwriting expert should not be acted
upon without substantial corroboration”.

13. Experts opinion
• In Dr Shanmuganathan v Perisamy s/o Sithambaram Pillai [1997]
3 MLJ 61 states the opinion of expert witnesses was admissible in
evidence and there was no requirement in law that such evidence
be corroborated. The learned trial judge should have accepted the
expert evidence of PW1 that the signature in the will was not the
signature of the deceased. The learned judge ought to have so
concluded having regard to the evidence in its totality, including
the very unlikelihood of an extremely careful and cautious non
practising lawyer like the deceased to have simply walked into a
law firm to have his last will drawn up by a solicitor with whom he
had no previous dealing, and yet leaving the will at the solicitor's
office without making any payment or even collecting it or leaving
any instructions to the solicitor. These suspicious circumstances in
which the will had suddenly appeared together with the evidence
of the expert, PW1, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the will
was a forgery.

14. Experts opinion
• In Fakhruddin v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 1326; 1967
Cri LJ 1197, Hidayathullah J said: “Where an expert's opinion is
given, the court must see for itself and with the assistance of the
expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held
that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say
that the court must play the role of an expert but to say that the
court may accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself
on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether
of the expert or other witness. These observations lend no support
to any requirement as to corroboration of expert testimony. On
the other hand, the facts show that the court ultimately did act
upon the uncorroborated testimony of the expert though the
judges took the precaution of comparing the writing themselves”.
We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any
rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that
opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted
upon, unless substantially corroborated.

15. Experts opinion
• The evidence of an expert on
handwriting must be supported
by reasons: Per Anuar J in United
Asian bank Bhd v Tai Soon Heng
Construction Sdn Bhd [1993] 1
MLJ 182 states “In a civil case
and more so in a criminal case,
the evidence of an expert on
handwriting unsupported by
cogent data showing the process
by which he came to his
conclusion is worthless and any
reliance upon such evidence
would constitute a serious
misdirection warranting
interference by an appellate
tribunal”.

16. Experts opinion
• Other methods of proving handwriting:
• Section 47 of EA 1950 provides Opinion as
to handwriting when relevant. (Bila
pendapat mengenai tulisan tangan
relevan). When the court has to form an
opinion as to the person by whom any
document was written or signed, the
opinion of any person acquainted with the
handwriting of the person by whom it is
supposed to have been written or signed,
that it was or was not written or signed by
that person, is a relevant fact. (Apabila
mahkamah perlu membuat sesuatu
pendapat tentang siapakah orang yang
telah menulis atau menandatangani
sesuatu dokumen, maka pendapat
seseorang yang kenal akan tulisan tangan
orang yang dikata telah menulis atau
menandatangani dokumen itu, bahawa
dokumen itu telah atau tidak ditulis atau
ditandatangani oleh orang itu, adalah
sesuatu fakta relevan).

17. Experts opinion
• Other methods of proving handwriting:
• Principle and scope: Under this section the opinion of any person
acquainted with the handwriting of a person is relevant when the
court has to form an opinion on the handwriting of such person.
Per Coleridge J in Doe D Mudd v Suckermore [1836] 5 Ad & E
703 states “The rule as to the proof of handwriting, where the
witness has not seen the party write the document in question,
may stated generally thus. Either the witness has seen the party
write on some former occasion or he has corresponded with
him…”. The knowledge may have been acquired, either by seeing
the party write, in which case it will be stronger or weaker
according to the number of times and the periods, and other
circumstances under which the witness has seen the party write,
but it will be sufficient knowledge to admit the evidence of the
witness even if he has seen him write but once, and then merely
signing his surname: See Garrells v Alexander [1801] 4 Esp 37,
Powell v Ford [1817] 2 Stark NPC 164, and Lewis v Sapio [1827]
M & M 39.

18. Experts opinion
• Other methods of proving handwriting:
• Evidentiary value of such evidence: Per Hashim Yeop A Sani J in PP v
Mohamed Kassim Bin Yatim [1977] 1 MLJ 64 states “The other two
witnesses were familiar with the handwriting of the accused. The
cumulative effect of all their combined evidence cannot however be
stronger than ordinary opinion evidence. Sarkar says it is certain that all
such proof is even in its best form "precarious and often extremely
dangerous." It has been well remarked that many persons write alike”.
Per Syed Agil Barakbah SCJ in Chu Choon Moi v Ngan Sew Tin [1986] 1
MLJ 34 states “It is not proper to attempt making any conclusion on the
genuineness of a signature in a document by comparing two similar
handwriting without resorting to the opinion of a handwriting expert who
is specialised in this field. The requirement becomes incumbent when the
handwriting is in Chinese characters in which the Judge in question has
no knowledge whatever. It is insufficient to rely on the opinion of an
ordinary witness and the more so an interested party in the person of
David Yong who in his testimony said he was not certain whether the
signature on the third agreement (Ex. P.1) was that of his father.
Although he ventured an explanation, he only suspected that the signature
was not written by his father. He might be familiar with his father's
handwriting…”

19. Experts opinion
• Other methods of proving handwriting:
• Section 67 of EA 1950 provides Proof of
signature and handwriting of person
alleged to have signed or written document
produced. (Bukti mengenai tandatangan
dan tulisan tangan orang yang dikatakan
telah menandatangani atau menulis
dokumen yang dikemukakan) If a
document is alleged to be signed or to have
been written wholly or in part by any
person, the signature or the handwriting of
so much of the document as is alleged to be
in that person's handwriting shall be
proved to be in his handwriting (Jika
sesuatu dokumen dikatakan sebagai
ditandatangani atau sebagai telah ditulis
kesemuanya atau sebahagiannya oleh
seseorang, maka tandatangan atau tulisan
tangan mengenai sekian banyak dari
dokumen itu yang dikatakan sebagai
dalam tulisan tangan orang itu hendaklah
dibuktikan sebagai dalam tulisan
tangannya)

20. Experts opinion
• Other methods of proving handwriting:
• Principle and scope: This section deals with proof of the signature
and handwriting of a person on a document. The method of
proving the signature and handwriting of a person is governed by
sections 45, 47 and 73 of the Act while section 90 of the Act relates
to the presumption of signatures of ancient document. Per
Sarkaria J in State (Delhi Administration) v Pali Ram AIR 1979
SC 14 states “Just as in English Law, the Indian Evidence Act
recognizes two direct methods of proving the handwriting of a
person: a) By an admission of the person who wrote it and b) By
the evidence of some witness who saw it written. These are the best
methods of proof. These apart, there are three other modes of
proof by opinion. They are a) By the evidence of a handwriting
expert (section 45) b) By the evidence of a witness acquainted with
the handwriting of the person who is said to have written the
writing in question (section 47) and c) Opinion formed by the
court on comparison made by itself (section 73)”. A signature or
handwriting may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. Per
Abdoolcader FJ in Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim v PP [1983] 2 MLJ 232
states

21. Experts opinion
• Other methods of proving handwriting:
• Section 73 provides Comparison of
signature, writing or seal with others
admitted or proved. (1) In order to
ascertain whether a signature, writing or
seal is that of the person by whom it
purports to have been written or made,
any signature, writing or seal, admitted or
proved to the satisfaction of the court to
have been written or made by that person,
may be compared by a witness or by the
court with the one which is to be proved,
although that signature, writing or seal
has not been produced or proved for any
other purpose. (2) The court may direct
any person present in court to write any
words or figures for the purpose of
enabling the court to compare the words
or figures so written with any words or
figures alleged to have been written by
that person. (3) This section applies also,
with any necessary modifications, to finger
impressions.

22. Experts opinion
• Other methods of proving handwriting:
• Principle and scope: Apart from section 45
and 47 of the Act, this is the third
provision in the Act which deals with
proof of handwriting of a person. It
provides that the court may form its
opinion on handwriting based on a
comparison made by witness or by itself.
The methods of comparison provided by
this section are:
• By comparison of any signature, writing or
seal, admitted or proved to the satisfaction
of the court with the one which is to be
proved. This was the method adopted by
the court to compare signatures in Ng Yik
Seng v Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Bhd
[1980] 2 MLJ 83.
• By the court directing any person present
in court to write any words or figures to
enable the court to compare the words or
figures so written with any words or
figures alleged to have been written by
that person.

23. Experts opinion
• Experts should not give conclusions on matters
which are eminently matters for the court to
decide (Ultimate issue) Per Winslow J in Ong
Chan Tow v R [1963] MLJ 160 states “Such an
expert should not be asked to give his
conclusion on matters which are eminently
matters for the court to decide, otherwise he
would tend to arrogate to himself the functions
of the court. The motoring expert is there to
help the court on technical and mechanical
matters, not to draw inferences which even a
layman can equally well draw”.

24. Experts opinion
• Per Winslow J in Lim Ting Hong v PP [1966] 2 MLJ 119 states “Apparently
the reason for the withdrawal lies in the fact that the expert was asked
whether he could say that the appellant was a member of the Ang Bin
Hoey triad society. In reply, the expert said that he could not. In my
opinion, the expert should not have been asked whether the appellant was
a member of the Ang Bin Hoey triad society or not, as this was a matter
which the court itself had to determine on the evidence of the finding of
the writings in his possession and after considering the presumption
arising under section 15(1) and the case as a whole. The expert was in no
position to say whether or not the appellant was such a member. What he
could and did say was that these poems were used by the Ang Bin Hoey
triad society as part of its ritual. He could usefully have said nothing more
on this subject”. The appellant was found guilty of possession of writings
relating to a triad society. The expert gave evidence that the poems found in
the possession of the appellant related to the Ang Bin Hoay triad society. On
appeal it was contended that the evidence should have been analysed by the
district judge and as he had failed to do so, the conviction should be set aside.
Held: this was a pure and simple case of possession and on the facts the
district judge had found that the appellant was in possession of the poems,
which were shown to relate a triad society, and therefore the appellant was
correctly convicted. (However sentenced reduced).

25. Experts opinion
• In UAB v Tai Soon Heng Construction Sdn Bhd [1993]
1 MLJ 182 (1) The issue whether a signature on a
document has been forged is a question of fact. It is a
matter for the trial court to determine after
considering the credibility of the witnesses it has seen
and heard and taking into account any expert evidence
on the point.
• In Wong Swee Chin v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 21 “But, except
on purely scientific issues, expert evidence is to be used
by the court for the purpose of assisting rather than
compelling the formulation of the ultimate judgments.
In the ultimate analysis it is the tribunal of fact,
whether it be a judge or jury, which is required to
weigh all the evidence and determine the probabilities.
It cannot transfer this task to the expert witness, the
court must come to its own opinion”

26. Experts opinion
• In Chin Sen Wah v PP [1958] MLJ 154 “Where an
accused person is charged with the offence of assisting
in the carrying on of a public lottery, contrary to
section 4(1)(c) of the Common Gaming Houses
Ordinance, 1953, the ultimate responsibility of
determining whether or not there is a public lottery
rests with the Magistrate. He does that with the
assistance of such experts as may be called before him
to explain what the lottery is, how it is run, and how the
facts adduced and the exhibits produced in the case
before him establish in the opinion of the expert the
existence of a public lottery. But it is for the Magistrate
to form his decision in the light of the evidence given by
the expert” See Ang Chwee Keong v Regina (1955)
MLJ 36, Public Prosecutor v Lee Ee Teong (1953) MLJ
244 and Sim Ah Seng v Rex (1951) MLJ 150.

27. Experts opinion
• Evidentiary value of expert evidence
• Per BTH Lee J in Shen Yuan Pai v Dato’d Wee Hood Teck [1976] 1 MLJ
16 “The law on the value of an expert evidence is found in Phipson on
Evidence, 10th Edn., para. 1286, p. 481. It reads: The testimony of experts
is often considered to be of slight value, since they are proverbially,
though perhaps unwittingly biased in favour of the side which calls them,
as well as over-ready to regard harmless facts as confirmation of
preconceived theories, moreover, support or opposition to given
hypothesis can generally be multiplied at will”.
• Per Hashim Yeop A Sani J in PP v Mohamed Kassim Bin Yatim [1977] 1
MLJ 64 states “Evidence of an expert can never go beyond an opinion and
can never therefore be of absolute certainty. It has always been accepted
that expert evidence especially of handwriting can never be conclusive”.
• Per Mohamed Azmi SCJ in Junaidi Bin Abdullah v PP [1993] 3 MLJ 217
states “The lack of qualification or experience on the part of the expert
must necessarily affect the weight of the evidence rather than
admissibility. But where the evidence is of complex and scientific nature,
the absence of both qualification and experience can certainly affect
admissibility