V
Vivienne Ketheeswaran
Person 1 case
Vivienne Ketheeswaran appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
06rj-1-03-2023b
1. ) KETHEESWARAN A/L M KANAGARATNAM 2. ) VIVIENNE KETHEESWARAN v Pendakwa Raya
MYFC 4 January 2024
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Vivienne Ketheeswaran
Vivienne Ketheeswaran appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning January 2024 to January 2024. Vivienne Ketheeswaran appeared as appellant in 1 case. Cases span the Federal Court (1).
How many court cases involve Vivienne Ketheeswaran?
Vivienne Ketheeswaran appears in 1 published judgment from January 2024 to January 2024. Most commonly as appellant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
1 In the present case, having examined section 61A by itself and in context earlier, we find that judicial power has in no way been abrogated, curtailed or subjugated to the Legislature by any means whatsoever. The use of the phrase ‘prima facie evidence’ by no means has the conclusive effect as erroneously proposed by the appellants. In all cases, the defence retains the ability to call rebuttal evidence and the Judiciary retains the obligation to evaluate all the evidence at the close of the prosecution’s case sufficient to warrant a conviction before calling for defence. 2 We are inclined to accept the respondent’s submission that when depositions under section 61A are tendered as evidence, even as prima facie evidence of any facts stated in the deposition, the prosecution is not absolved of its obligation to prove a prima facie case including but not limited to adducing further evidence that is available or in certain cases, corroborating the depositions. 3 Insofar as the right to a fair trial is concerned, it is our view that section 61A has fairly triangulated the rights of the accused, the victims and public interest. 4 Reading section 61A in context, we find that there is in the first place, no discrimination against the appellants as regards sections 52 and 61A. The two provisions are entirely different provisions catering for different procedures for different circumstances which have been explained above. In any case, the basis for the application of section 61A over section 52 is clear in that the former applies when a witness can no longer be found by virtue of them having been deported pursuant to the applicable provisions of Act 155. 1 CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE: Constitutionality of Section 61A of Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (“ATIPSOM”) 1